Civil

Law Cases Arts. 12-14 Trece Martires and Friends

People vs Ambal 100 SCRA 325 (Article 12- Insanity)

Facts: Honorato Ambal was convicted of parricide for killing his wife Felicula. The victim was found by the
barangay captain under some flowering plants near Honoratos house mortally wounded. She later died in the
hospital. Honorato and Felicula were married for 15 years but their marriage is characterized by frequent
quarrels and bickering. The immediate provocation for the assault was a quarrel induced by Felicula's failure
to buy medicine for Ambal who was afflicted with influenza. The two engaged in a heated altercation. Felicula
told her husband that it would be better if he were dead. That remark infuriated Ambal and impelled him to
attack his wife. Petitioner eventually surrendered to the police and confessed to the crime. At the
arraignment, Ambal pleaded not guilty invoked the defense of insanity.
Issue: Whether or not Ambals defense of insanity is valid
Held: No. The Supreme Court gave credence to the findings of the trial court that the petitioner did not show
any mental defect and was normal. Insanity has been defined as a manifestation in language or conduct of
disease or defect of the brain, or a more or less permanently diseased or disordered condition of the
mentality, functional or organic, and characterized by perversion, inhibition, or disordered function of the
sensory or of the intellective faculties, or by impaired or disordered volition. The law presumes that every
person is of sound mind, in the absence of proof to the contrary. In order that insanity may be taken as an
exempting circumstance, there must be complete deprivation of intelligence in the commission of the act or
that the accused acted without the least discernment. Mere abnormality of his mental faculties does not
exclude imputability. In the case at bar, the alleged insanity of Ambal was not substantiated by any sufficient
evidence. He was not completely bereft of reason or discernment and freedom of will when he mortally
wounded his wife. He was not suffering from any mental disease or defect. The fact that immediately after the
incident he thought of surrendering to the law-enforcing authorities is incontestable proof that he knew that
what he had done was wrong and that he was going to be punished for it. Thus Ambal was found guilty of
parricide.
People vs Callet (Art. 13- Lack of Intent to commit so grave a wrong)
Facts: One afternoon, the victim Alfredo Senador, his 12-year old son, Lecpoy, and one Eduardo Perater were
at the flea market of a barangay in Negros Oriental. There were many people in the vicinity with some playing
cara y cruz while others were playing volleyball. The three were watching cara y cruz when Callet suddenly
appeared behind Alfredo and stabbed the latter on the left shoulder near the base of the neck with a 9-inch
hunting knife. Alfredo managed to walk away but died shortly after. The barangay Tanods arrested the
accused and after the trial, he was found guilty of murder. Caller appealed and cited one of his reasons that
the RTC erred in failing to consider that he did not intend to commit so grave a wrong.
Issue: Whether or not the accused should be given the benefit of mitigating circumstances of acting without
intention to commit so grave a wrong
Held: No. The Court was not persuaded with the petitioners claims. The Court ruled that the lack of intent to
commit a wrong so grave is an internal state. It is weighed based on the weapon used, the part of the body
injured, the injury inflicted and the manner it is inflicted. The fact that the accused used a 9-inch hunting knife
in attacking the victim from behind, without giving him an opportunity to defend himself, clearly shows that
he intended to do what he actually did, and he must be held responsible therefor, without the benefit of this
mitigating circumstance.


Page 1 of 34

Civil Law Cases Arts. 12-14 Trece Martires and Friends

People v Puno Art. 12 Insanity/imbecility

FACTS: This is a murder case where the accused interposed as a defense the exempting circumstance of
insanity. Puno entered a bedroom in the house of Aling Kikay. Upon seeing the latter, Puno insulted her,
slapped, and struck her several times on the head using a hammer, which causes the death of Aling Kikay. The
witnesses, Hilaria de la Cruz and Lina Pajes, testified that during the assault, Punos eyes were reddish; he
looked baleful and menacing. After the killing, Puno warned Hilaria not to confess to the police; subsequently,
he fled to his fathers house. Disregarding Puno's threat, Lina, after noting that he had left, notified the
Malabon police of the killing. Corporal Daniel B. Cruz answered the call. He found Aling Kikay sprawled on her
bed already dead, her head was bloody. Her blanket and pillows were bloodstained. He took down the
statements of Lina and Hilaria at the police station. They pointed to Puno as the killer. Punos father, then,
surrendered him to the police; Puno was brought to the National Mental Hospital. Five months after the
killing, Puno testified, pretending that he did not remember the crime that he did. He also claimed that he
believed in mambabarang or mangkukulam and that those kind of persons must be killed. Zenaida Gabriel,
Puno's wife, testified that on the night before the murder, Puno's eyes were reddish. He complained of a
headache. The following day while he was feeding the pigs, he told Zenaida that a bumble bee was coming
towards him and he warded it off with his hands. Zenaida did not see any bee. There are other witnesses who
claimed about the unexplainable behavior of Puno. The defense presented three psychiatrists. However,
instead of proving that puno was insane when he killed Aling Kikay, the medical experts testified that Puno
acted with discernment. Furthermore, two experts from the National Mental Hospital claimed that despite of
the schizophrenic reaction that Puno have, he can live well and can adjust to the society. Hence, the trial court
concluded that Puno was aware of the killing of Aling Kikay and that he would be punished for it. The trial
court also concluded that if Puno was a homicidal maniac who had gone berserk, he would have killed also
Hilaria and Lina. The fact that he singled out Aling Kikay signified that he really disposed of her because he
thought that she was a witch. The trial court convicted Puno of murder, sentenced him to death and ordered
him to pay the heirs of the victim an indemnity of twenty-two thousand pesos. Thus, there is a petition that
the trial court erred in not sustaining the defense of insanity.
ISSUE: Whether or not Puno can be held liable despite of the defense of his counsel.
HELD: Yes. However, the death penalty is set aside. The accused is sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The
indemnity imposed by the trial court is affirmed. Hence, the Court considered the defense of the counsel of
Puno that the convicted was suffering from insanity from the time he killed Aling Kikay. Insanity under article
12 of the Revised Penal Code means that the accused must be deprived completely of reason or discernment
and freedom of the will at the time of committing the crime. Insanity exists when there is complete
deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, that is, the accused is deprived of reason, he acts without the
least discernment because there is complete absence of the power to discern, or that there is total
deprivation of freedom of the will. Mere abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability."
Given the argument from the defense, the Court came to a conclusion that Puno was not legally insane when
he killed the hapless and helpless victim. The facts and the findings of the psychiatrists reveal that on that
tragic occasion he was not completely deprived of reason and freedom of will. Furthermore, he was convicted
of murder given that the trial court correctly characterized the killing as murder; there is abuse of superiority
and generic aggravating circumstances. There are only medium period of penalty that is imposed since the
Court considered the voluntary surrender to the authorities of Puno and, as contended by counsel de oficio,
the offender's mental illness (mild psychosis or schizophrenic reaction) which diminished his will-power
without however depriving him of consciousness of his acts.
People v Dungo 199 SCRA 860 - Art12. Insanity/Imbecility
Page 2 of 34

Civil Law Cases Arts. 12-14 Trece Martires and Friends

Facts: On March 16, 1987 between 2:00 and 3:00pm, the accused went to Mrs. Sigua's office at the
Department of Agrarian Reform, Apalit, Pampanga. After a brief talk, the accused drew a knife from the
envelope he was carrying and stabbed Mrs. Sigua several times. After which he departed from the office with
blood stained clothes, carrying a bloodied bladed weapon. The autopsy report revealed that the victim
sustained 14 wounds, 5 of which were fatal. Rodolfo Sigua, husband of the deceased, testified that sometime
in February 1987, the accused Rosalino Dungo inquired from him why his wife was requiring so many
documents from him. Rodolfo explained to him the procedure at the DAR. The accused, in defense of himself,
tried to show that he was insane at the time of the commission of the offense: Two weeks prior to March 16,
1987, Rosalino's wife noticed that he appears to be in deep thought always, maltreating their children when
he was not used to it before. There were also times that her husband would inform her that his feet and head
were on fire when in truth they were not. On that fateful day, Rosalino complained of stomachache but they
didn't bother to buy medicine as the pain went away immediately. Thereafter, he went back to the store. But
when Andrea followed him to the store, he was no longer there. Worried, she looked for him. On her way
home, she heard people saying that a stabbing occurred. She saw her husband in her parents-in-law's house
with people milling around. She asked her husband why he did the act, to which Rosalino answered, "That's
the only cure for my ailment. I have cancer of the heart. If I don't kill the deceased in a number of days, I
would die. That same day, the accused went to Manila. Dr. Santiago and Dr. Echavez of the National Center
for Mental Health testified that the accused was confined in the mental hospital, as per order of the trial court
dated Aug. 17, 1987. Based on the reports of their staff, they concluded that Rosalino was psychotic or insane
long before, during and after the commission of the alleged crime and classified his insanity as an organic
mental disorder secondary to cerebro-vascular accident or stroke. But Dr. Balatbat who treated the accused
for ailments secondary to stroke, and Dr. Lim who testified that the accused suffered dorm occlusive disease,
concluded that Rosalino was somehow rehabilitated after a series of medical treatment in their clinic.
Issue: WON the accused was insane during the commission of the crime charged.
Held: No. For insanity to relieve the person of criminal liability, it is necessary that there be a complete
deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, that he acts w/o the least discernment and that there be
complete absence or deprivation of the freedom of the will. Under Philippine jurisdiction, there's no definite
test or criterion for insanity. However, the definition of insanity under Sec 1039* of the Revised Administrative
Code can be applied. In essence, it states that insanity is evinced by a deranged and perverted condition of the
mental faculties, which is manifested in language or conduct. An insane person has no full and clear
understanding of the nature and consequence of his act. Evidence of insanity must refer to the mental
condition at the very time of doing the act. However, it is also permissible to receive evidence of his mental
condition for a reasonable period before and after the time of the act in question. The vagaries of the mind
can only be known by outward acts. It is not usual for an insane person to confront a specified person who
may have wronged him. But in the case at hand, the accused was able to Mrs. Sigua. From this, it can be
inferred that the accused was aware of his acts. This also established that the accused has lucid intervals.
Moreover, Dr. Echavez testified to the effect that the appellant could have been aware of the nature of his act
at the time he committed it when he shouted (during laboratory examination) that he killed Mrs. Sigua. This
statement makes it highly doubtful that the accused was insane when he committed the act. The fact that
the accused was carrying an envelope where he hid the fatal weapon, that he ran away from the scene of the
incident after he stabbed the victim several times, that he fled to Manila to evade arrest, indicate that he was
conscious and knew the consequences of his acts in stabbing the victim. (This was taken from the TC's
decision).

Page 3 of 34

Civil Law Cases Arts. 12-14 Trece Martires and Friends

People v Taneo - Art. 12 - Insanity

Facts: Potenciano Taneo who live with his wife in his parent's house in Leyte. A fiesta was being celebrated on
their barrio and visotors were entertained in the house. Among them were Fred Tanner and Luis Malinao.
Early that afternoon, Potenciano, went to sleep and suddenly he got up, left the room with a bolo in hand,
upon meeting his wife who tried to stop him, he wounded her in the abdomen. Potenciano even attacked the
visitors and tried to attack his father as well. Potenciano's wife who was then seven months pregnant, died
five days later, and also the foetus which was asphyxiated in the mother's womb.
It appears from the evidence that the day before the commission of the crime, Potenciano had a quarrel over
a glass of tuba with Enrique Collantes and Valentin Abadilla, who invited him to a fight but his wife and mother
stopped him.
As Potenciano's defense, he stated that he had a dream that Collantes was trying to stab him with a bolo while
Abadilla held his feet. As he woke up, he is still thinking about the dream he went out the room with a bolo. At
the doorm he et his wife who seemed to say to him that she was wounded. Then he fancied seeing his wife
really wounded and in desperation wounded himself. As his enemies seemed to multiply around him, he
attacked everybody that came his way.
Issue: WON the defendant is liable of the crim of parricide if he acted while in a dream.
Held: No. The evidence shows that the defendant not only did not have any trouble with his wife, but that he
loved her dearly. Neither did he have any dispute with Tanner and Malinao, or have any motive for assaulting
them.
Doctor Serafica, an expert witness in this case. The doctor stated that considering the circumstances of the
case, the defendant acted while in a dream, under the influence of an hallucination and not in his right mind.
The court even noticed that the evidence does not clearly show that he wounded his husband and it may have
been caused accidentally.
In view of all these considerations, and reserving the judgment appealed from, the courts finds that the
defendant is not criminally liable for the offense with which he is charged.
People v. Estepano - Art. 12 - MINORITY
Facts: ENRIQUE BALINAS was stabbed and hacked to death for which Dominador, Rodrigo, Ruben, Rodney,
Dante and Rene, all surnamed Estepano, were charged with murder. Florencio Tayco testified while on his way
home with Lopito Gaudia and Enrique Balinas, they met Dominador Estepano at the BM Trucking compound.
Lopito started to talk to Dominador while he and Enrique stood nearby. Suddenly, Rodrigo appeared and
without any provocation stabbed Enrique in the stomach. Ruben who was armed with a cane cutter and
Rodney, Dante and Rene, each armed with a bolo, followed suit in hacking Enrique. Gaudia confirmed
Florencios testimony.
While, Dominador Estepano gave his own version of the incident, as well as Ruben, Rene and Rodney invoking
their alibi, the factual findings of the trial court went with the credible testimony of prosecution witness
Florencio Tayco.
The trial court was correct in finding accused-appellants Ruben Estepano and Rodney Estepano guilty of
murder. With respect to accused-appellant Rene Estepano, the records show that he was only thirteen (13)
years of age at the time of the commission of the offense.

Page 4 of 34

Civil Law Cases Arts. 12-14 Trece Martires and Friends

Issue: Whether or not accused Rene Estepano, a minor, is exempt from criminal liability under Article 12 of the
Revised Penal Code
Held: Yes. The court ruled that prosecution did not endeavor to establish Rene's mental capacity to fully
appreciate the consequences of his unlawful act.
Under Art. 12, par. (3), of The Revised Penal Code, a person over nine (9) years of age and under fifteen (15) is
exempt from criminal liability unless it is shown that he acted with discernment.
The prosecutions cross-examination of Rene did not in any way attempt to show his discernment. He was
merely asked about what he knew of the incident that transpired on 16 April 1991 and whether he
participated therein. Accordingly, even if he was indeed a co-conspirator, he would still be exempt from
criminal liability as the prosecution failed to rebut the presumption of non-discernment on his part by virtue of
his age. The cross-examination of Rene could have provided the prosecution a good occasion to extract from
him positive indicators of his capacity to discern. But, in this regard, the government miserably squandered
the opportunity to incriminate him.
Accused-appellant RENE ESTEPANO is ACQUITTED in the absence of proof that he acted with discernment;
consequently, his immediate RELEASE from confinement is ORDERED unless he is detained for some other
lawful cause.
Llave v People - Exempting Circumstances Minority
Facts: In 2002, Debbielyn, a minor, seven (7) years of age, was a Grade 2 student studying in Pasay City. During
September 24th of the same year, she arrived home at past 6:00 p.m and changed her clothes and proceeded
to her mothers store. Marilou asked her daughter to bring home the container with the unsold quail eggs.
Debbielyn did as told and went on her way. As she neared the vacant house, she saw petitioner Llave, a minor
over nine (9) of age and under fifteen (15), who suddenly pulled her behind a pile of hollow blocks which was
in front of the vacant house. There was a little light from the lamp post. She resisted to no avail. Petitioner
ordered her to lie down on the cement. Petrified, she complied. He removed her shorts and underwear then
removed his own. He got on top of her. She felt his penis being inserted into her vagina. He kissed her. She felt
pain and cried. She was sure there were passersby on the street near the vacant house at the time. It was then
that Teofisto, neighbor of Debbielyn, came out of their house and heard the girls cries. He rushed to the place
and saw petitioner on top of Debbielyn, naked from the waist down. Teofisto shouted at petitioner, and the
latter fled from the scene. Teofisto told Debbielyn to inform her parents about what happened.17 She told her
father about the incident.18 Her parents later reported what happened to the police authorities.19 Debbielyn
told the police that petitioner was a bad boy because he was a rapist.
Issue: Whether or not petitioner, who was minor above 9 years but below 15 years of age at the time of the
crime, acted with discernment.
Held: Yes. The act done by Llave of forcibly pulling the complainant towards the vacant lot, laid on top of her
and had carnal knowledge with the [complainant] against her will and consent who is only seven (7) years old
constitutes a concrete evidence that he acted with discernment. Hence, the trial court declared that based
on the evidence of the prosecution that petitioner pushed the victim towards the vacant house and sexually
abused her, petitioner acted with discernment. the Court finds the CICL [Child in Conflict with the Law] Niel
Llave y Flores guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and crediting him with the special mitigating circumstance of
minority, this Court hereby sentences him to prision mayor minimum, Six (6) years and One (1) day to Eight (8)
years, and pay civil indemnity of Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00).
Jarco vs. CA Art. 12 - Minority
Page 5 of 34

Civil Law Cases Arts. 12-14 Trece Martires and Friends

FACTS: ZHIENETH, a six-year old child, and her mother CRISELDA were at the 2nd floor of Syvel's Department
Store owned by JARCO Corporation. While CRISELDA was signing her credit card slip at the payment and
verification counter she suddenly heard a loud sound. She looked behind her and saw her daughter on the
floor, her young body pinned by the bulk of the store's gift-wrapping counter/structure. ZHIENETH was crying
and screaming for help. Although shocked, CRISELDA was quick to ask the assistance of the people around in
lifting the counter and retrieving ZHIENETH from the floor. ZHIENETH was quickly rushed to the Makati
Medical Center where she was operated on. The next day ZHIENETH lost her speech and thereafter
communicated with CRISELDA by writing on a magic slate. The injuries she sustained took their toil on her
young body. She died fourteen (14) days after the accident. The cause of her death was attributed to the
injuries she sustained.
After the burial of their daughter, private respondents demanded upon petitioners the reimbursement of the
hospitalization, medical bills and wake and funeral expenses which they had incurred. Petitioners refused to
pay. Consequently, private respondents filed a complaint for damages.
Petitioners denied any liability for the injuries and consequent death of ZHIENETH. They claimed that
CRISELDA was negligent in exercising care and diligence over her daughter by allowing her to freely roam
around in a store filled with glassware and appliances. ZHIENETH too, was guilty of contributory negligence
since she climbed the counter, triggering its eventual collapse on her. Petitioners also emphasized that the
counter was made of sturdy wood with a strong support; it never fell nor collapsed for the past fifteen years
since its construction. RTC - CRISELDA's negligence contributed to ZHIENETH's accident.
RTC- ruled in favor of Jarco
CA- ruled in favor of Criselda and that Zhieneth should be entitled to the conclusive presumption that a child
below nine (9) years is incapable of contributory negligence
ISSUE: WON Zhieneth, a 6-year old child can be held negligent under the circumstances
HELD: NO. Anent the negligence imputed to ZHIENETH, the Court applied the conclusive presumption that
favors children below nine (9) years old in that they are incapable of contributory negligence. In his book,
former Judge Cezar S. Sangco stated: In our jurisdiction, a person under nine years of age is conclusively
presumed to have acted without discernment, and is, on that account, exempt from criminal liability. The
same presumption and a like exemption from criminal liability obtains in a case of a person over nine and
under fifteen years of age, unless it is shown that he has acted with discernment. Since negligence may be a
felony and aquasi-delict and required discernment as a condition of liability, either criminal or civil, a child
under nine years of age is, by analogy, conclusively presumed to be incapable of negligence; and that the
presumption of lack of discernment or incapacity for negligence in the case of a child over nine but under
fifteen years of age is a rebuttable one, under our law. The rule, therefore, is that a child under nine years of
age must be conclusively presumed incapable of contributory negligence as a matter of law. [Emphasis
supplied] Even if we attribute contributory negligence to ZHIENETH and assume that she climbed over the
counter, no injury should have occurred if we accept petitioners' theory that the counter was stable and
sturdy. For if that was the truth, a frail six-year old could not have caused the counter to collapse. The physical
analysis of the counter by both the trial court and Court of Appeals and a scrutiny of the evidence on record
reveal otherwise, i.e., it was not durable after all. Shaped like an inverted "L," the counter was heavy, huge,
and its top laden with formica. It protruded towards the customer waiting area and its base was not secured.
CRISELDA too, should be absolved from any contributory negligence. Initially, ZHIENETH held on to CRISELDA's
waist, later to the latter's hand. CRISELDA momentarily released the child's hand from her clutch when she
signed her credit card slip. At this precise moment, it was reasonable and usual for CRISELDA to let go of her
Page 6 of 34

Civil Law Cases Arts. 12-14 Trece Martires and Friends

child. Further, at the time ZHIENETH was pinned down by the counter, she was just a foot away from her
mother; and the gift-wrapping counter was just four meters away from CRISELDA. The time and distance were
both significant. ZHIENETH was near her mother and did not loiter as petitioners would want to impress upon
us. She even admitted to the doctor who treated her at the hospital that she did not do anything; the counter
just fell on her.
Guevarra v. Almodovar (Article 12. Minority)
Facts: Petitioner John Philip Guevarra, then 11 years old, was playing with his best friend Teodoro Almine, Jr.
and three other children in their backyard. They were target-shooting a bottle cap (tansan) placed around
fifteen (15) to twenty (20) meters away with an air rifle borrowed from a neighbor. In the course of their
game, Teodoro was hit by a pellet on his left collar bone which caused his unfortunate death. After the
preliminary investigation, the petitioner were exculpated due to his age and for the reason that the
unfortunate occurrence appeared to be an accident. The victims parents appealed to the Ministry of Justice,
which ordered the Fiscal to file a case against petitioner for Homicide through reckless Imprudence. The
petitioner moved to quash the filed information but subsequently denied.
Issue: WON, an eleven (11) year old boy could be charged with the crime of homicide thru reckless
imprudence
Held: Yes, the written arguments of the parties whether the term discernment, as used in Article 12(3) of
the Revised Penal Code (RPC) is synonymous with intent. It is clear that the terms intent and
discernment convey two distinct thoughts. While both are products of the mental processes within a
person, the former refers to the desired of ones act while the latter relates to the moral significance that
person ascribes to the said act. Hence a person may not intend to shoot another but may be aware of the
consequences of his negligent act which may cause injury to the same person in negligently handling an air
rifle. It is not connect, therefore, to argue, as petitioner does, that since a minor above nine years of age but
below fifteen acted with discernment, then he intended such act to be done. He may negligently shoot his
friend, thus did not intend to shoot him, and at the same time recognize the undesirable result of his
negligence. It is for this reason, therefore, why minors nine years of age and below are not capable of
performing a criminal act. On the other hand, minors above nine years of age but below fifteen are not
absolutely exempt. However, they are presumed to be without criminal capacity, but which presumption may
be rebutted if it could be proven that they were capable of appreciating the nature and criminality of the act,
that is, that (they) acted with discernment."
The petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Let this case be REMANDED to the lower court for trial on
the merits.
People v Sarcia - Art12. Minority
Facts: On December 1996, five year-old AAA, together with her cousin and two other playmates, was playing
in the yard of Saling Crisologo. Suddenly, appellant, Richard Sarcia who was then 18 or 19 years old, appeared
and invited AAA to go with him to the backyard of Saling Crisologos house. She agreed without knowing that
her cousin followed them.
Upon reaching the place, appellant removed AAAs shorts and underwear. He also removed his trousers and
brief and laid on top of her and raped her. Victim felt severe pain inside her private part and stomach.
After seeing what happened, AAA's cousin reported the incident to the victim's mother, but she dismissed her.
Only after four years (2000), did the victim's father filed a complaint of act of lasciviousness which upon the
review of evidence was upgraded to rape. Medico-legal findings showed there was no vulval laceration nor
Page 7 of 34

Civil Law Cases Arts. 12-14 Trece Martires and Friends

scars but with perforated hymen, which means a certain trauma or pressure such as strenuous exercise or the
entry of an object like a medical instrument or penis. RTC found the accused guilty of rape. CA affirmed the
decision but with modified the penalty to death and increased civil fine charges.
Issue: Whether or not the accused be punished by death penalty.
Held: No. The SC affirmed CA's decision, but modified the punishment to reclusion perpetua.
Under Art. 335 of the RPC, the imposable penalty for the rape of a child under 9 years old is death. However,
accused-appellant is entitled to privileged mitigating circumstance of minority because he was 18 years old at
the time of the commission of the offense. Since the prosecution was not able to prove the exact date and
time when the rape was committed, it is not certain that the crime of rape was committed on or after he
reached 18 years of age in 1996.
In assessing the attendance of the mitigating circumstance of minority, all doubts should be resolved in favor
of the accused, it being more beneficial to the latter.
Also, the promulgation of the sentence of conviction of accused-appellant by the RTC cannot be suspended as
he was about 25 years of age at that time of conviction.
Sec. 38 of R.A. No. 9344 provides for the automatic suspension of sentence of a child in conflict with the law,
even if he/she is already 18 years of age or more at the time he/she is found guilty of the offense charged.
However, Sec. 40 of the same law limits the said suspension of sentence until the said child reaches the
maximum age of 21.
Thus, the application of Secs. 38 and 40 to the suspension of sentence is now moot and academic. However,
accused-appellant shall be entitled to appropriate disposition under Sec. 51 of R.A. No. 9344 which provides
for confinement of convicted children.
People v. Mantalaba - Art 12 Minority
FACTS: The Task Force Regional Anti-Crime Emergency Response (RACER) in Butuan City received a report that
Allen Mantalaba, 17 years old at that time, was selling shabu. A buy-bust team was organized composed of 2
police officers, 2 poseur-buyers with two pieces of P100 marked bills. Mantalaba handed a sachet of shabu to
one of the poseur-buyers and he received the marked money from them. The police officers handcuffed
Mantalaba then.
After the operation, the police officers made an inventory of the items recovered from the appellant: 1 big
sachet of shabu, one small sachet of shabu and two pieces of P100 marked money and P50 bill.
Thereafter, two separate information were filed before the RTC of Butuan City against appellant for violation
of Section 5 and 11 of RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). RTC found Mantalaba guilty
and CA affirmed this decision.
ISSUE: 1. WON there should have been a suspension of sentence by reason of minority.
2. WON mitigating circumstance of minority should apply in the Courts decision.
HELD: 1. Yes. The appellant was 17 years old when the buy-bust operation took place or when the said offense
was committed but was no longer a minor at the time of the promulgation of the RTCs Decision. Decision. It
must be noted that RA 9344 took effect on May 20, 2006, while the RTC promulgated its decision on this case
on September 14, 2005, when said appellant was no longer a minor.

Page 8 of 34

Civil Law Cases Arts. 12-14 Trece Martires and Friends

The RTC did not suspend the sentence in accordance with The Child and Youth Welfare Code and The Rule on
Juveniles in Conflict with the Law, the laws that were applicable at the time of the promulgation of judgment,
because the imposable penalty for violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 is life imprisonment to death.
The appellant should have been entitled to a suspension of his sentence under Sections 38 and 68 of RA 9344
which provide for its retroactive application, thus:
---------
SEC. 38. Automatic Suspension of Sentence. - Once the child who is under eighteen (18) years of age at the
time of the commission of the offense is found guilty of the offense charged, the court shall determine and
ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted from the offense committed. However, instead of
pronouncing the judgment of conviction, the court shall place the child in conflict with the law under
suspended sentence, without need of application: Provided, however, That suspension of sentence shall still
be applied even if the juvenile is already eighteen years (18) of age or more at the time of the pronouncement
of his/her guilt.
Upon suspension of sentence and after considering the various circumstances of the child, the court shall
impose the appropriate disposition measures as provided in the Supreme Court [Rule] on Juveniles in Conflict
with the Law.
x x x x
Sec. 68. Children Who Have Been Convicted and are Serving Sentence. - Persons who have been convicted
and are serving sentence at the time of the effectivity of this Act, and who were below the age of eighteen
(18) years at the time of the commission of the offense for which they were convicted and are serving
sentence, shall likewise benefit from the retroactive application of this Act. x x x x x x
---------
However, the Court has already ruled in People v. Sarcia that while Section 38 of RA 9344 provides that
suspension of sentence can still be applied even if the child in conflict with the law is already eighteen (18)
years of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt, Section 40 of the same law limits the
said suspension of sentence until the child reaches the maximum age of 21.
Hence, the appellant, who is now beyond the age of twenty-one (21) years can no longer avail of the
provisions of Sections 38 and 40 of RA 9344 as to his suspension of sentence, because such is already moot
and academic.
2. Yes, the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority can be appreciated in fixing the penalty that should
be imposed. The RTC, as affirmed by the CA, imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua without considering
the minority of the appellant. Thus, applying the rules, the proper penalty should be one degree lower than
reclusion perpetua, which is reclusion temporal, the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority having
been appreciated.

US v. CABALLEROS - Art.12 Irresistible force/uncontrollable fear
Facts: This is an appeal from a judgment of the CFI of Cebu, Robert Baculi and Apolonio Caballeros were
convicted as accessories to the crime of assassination or murder of four American school-teachers, having
buried the corpses of the victims to conceal the crime. They were allegedly coerced. One Teodoro Sabate, the
only witness of the prosecution, says he was present when the Americans were killed; that Roberto Baculi was
Page 9 of 34

Civil Law Cases Arts. 12-14 Trece Martires and Friends

not a member of the group who killed the Americans, but Baculi was in a banana plantation on his property
gathering some bananas; that when he heard the shots he began to run; that he was, however, seen by
Damaso and Isidoro, the leaders of the band; that the latter called to him and striking him with the butts of
their guns they forced him to bury the corpses. As regards the other defendant, Apolonio Caballeros, there is
no proof that he took any part in any way in the execution of the crime with which he has been charged;
Teodoro Sabate, expressly declare that he, Caballeros, did not take any part in the burial of the aforesaid
corpses, nor was he even in the place of the occurrence when the burial took place.
Issue: WON the defense under Art12(5) is tenable?
Held: Yes. Baculis confession that he only assisted in the burial of the corpses because he was compelled by
the murderers and this was corroborated by the only eyewitness to the crime, Sabate. As for Caballeros, there
was no proof that he took any part in the execution of the crime; there was conclusive proof to the contrary.
Sabate and Baculi declared that Caballeros did not take any part in the burial of the aforesaid corpses, nor was
he even in the place of the occurrence when the burial took place. Their failure to report the crime is not an
offense punished by the Penal Code.The appealed judgment reversed, defendant acquitted.
The fact of the defendants not reporting to the authorities the perpetration of the crime, which seems to be
one of the motives for the conviction and which the court below takes into consideration in his judgment, is
not punished by the Penal Code and therefore that cannot render the defendants criminally liable according to
law.
Article.12 par. 5- Any person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force are exempt from criminal
liability.
US V EXALTACION Art. 12 Irresistible force / uncontrollable fear
FACTS: The provincial fiscal of Bulacan presented to the court of that province an information charging
Liberato Exaltacion and Buenaventura Tanchinco with the crime of rebellion, in that they willfully and illegally
bound themselves to take part in a rebellion against the Government of the United States, swearing allegiance
to the Katipunan Society, the purpose of which was to overthrow the said Government by force of arms.
The two, however, contend that they were captured by brigands, who compelled them to take an oath
supporting the Katipunan Society under threats of death. They produced several witnesses which
corroborated the fact of their capture and of their subsequent report to Don Tomas Testa, municipal president
of Meycauayan, who was also kidnapped.
ISSUE: WON duress relieves them from criminal liability of rebellion.
HELD: YES. The Court reversed the decision and acquitted the defendants because the documents were
insufficient to prove their guilt.
The facts, established by the evidence, that the defendants were kidnapped by brigands who belonged to the
Contreras band, and that they signed the said documents under compulsion and while in captivity, relieve
them from all criminal liability from the crime of rebellion of which they are charged.
Pomoy v People - Art12. Accident
FACTS: Tomas Balboa was a master teacher of the Concepcion College of Science and Fisheries in Concepcion,
Iloilo. He was arrested by police officer allegedly in connection on a Robbery case. Balboa was taken to the
Headquarters of the already defunct 321st Philippine Constabulary Company at Camp Jalandoni, Sara, Iloilo.
He was detained in jail. Later that day, about a little past 2 oclock in the afternoon, petitioner, who is a police
sergeant, went near the door of the jail where Balboa was detained and directed the latter to come out,
Page 10 of 34

Civil Law Cases Arts. 12-14 Trece Martires and Friends

purportedly for tactical interrogation at the investigation room, as he told Balboa: Lets go to the investigation
room. The investigation room is at the main building of the compound where the jail is located. The jail guard
on duty, Nicostrado Estepar, opened the jail door and walked towards the investigation room. At that time,
petitioner had a gun, a .45 caliber pistol, tucked in a holster which was hanging by the side of his belt. The gun
was fully embedded in its holster, with only the handle of the gun protruding from the holster. When
petitioner and Balboa reached the main building and were near the investigation room, two (2) gunshots were
heard. When the source of the shots was verified, petitioner was seen still holding a .45 caliber pistol, facing
Balboa, who was lying in a pool of blood, about two (2) feet away. The witnesses (Erna Basa, Eden Legaspi)
heard some noise and exchange of words which were not clear, but it seemed there was growing trouble; Erna
opened the door to verify and saw Roweno Pomoy and Tomas Balboa grappling for the possession of the gun;
she was inside the room and one meter away from the door; Pomoy and Balboa while grappling were two to
three meters away from the door; the grappling happened so fast and the gun of Pomoy was suddenly pulled
out from its holster and then there was explosion. Balboa died.
ISSUE: WON Pomoy is exempted from criminal liability since the injury was caused by mere accident without
fault or intention while he is performing a lawful act/duty?
HELD: Petitioner is ACQUITTED. The elements of accident are as follows: 1) the accused was at the time
performing a lawful act with due care; 2) the resulting injury was caused by mere accident; and 3) on the part
of the accused, there was no fault or no intent to cause the injury. From the facts, it is clear that all these
elements were present. At the time of the incident, petitioner was a member -- specifically, one of the
investigators -- of the Philippine National Police (PNP) stationed at the Iloilo Provincial Mobile Force Company.
Thus, it was in the lawful performance of his duties as investigating officer that, under the instructions of his
superior, he fetched the victim from the latters cell for a routine interrogation.
Again, it was in the lawful performance of his duty as a law enforcer that petitioner tried to defend his
possession of the weapon when the victim suddenly tried to remove it from his holster. As an enforcer of the
law, petitioner was duty-bound to prevent the snatching of his service weapon by anyone, especially by a
detained person in his custody. Such weapon was likely to be used to facilitate escape and to kill or maim
persons in the vicinity, including petitioner himself.
Petitioner cannot be faulted for negligence. He exercised all the necessary precautions to prevent his service
weapon from causing accidental harm to others. As he so assiduously maintained, he had kept his service gun
locked when he left his house; he kept it inside its holster at all times, especially within the premises of his
working area.
At no instance during his testimony did the accused admit to any intent to cause injury to the deceased, much
less kill him. Furthermore, Nicostrato Estepar, the guard in charge of the detention of Balboa, did not testify to
any behavior on the part of petitioner that would indicate the intent to harm the victim while being fetched
from the detention cell.
The participation of petitioner, if any, in the victims death was limited only to acts committed in the course of
the lawful performance of his duties as an enforcer of the law. The removal of the gun from its holster, the
release of the safety lock, and the firing of the two successive shots -- all of which led to the death of the
victim -- were sufficiently demonstrated to have been consequences of circumstances beyond the control of
petitioner. At the very least, these factual circumstances create serious doubt on the latters culpability.
People vs. Doria Art. 12 Absolutory causes arts 6, 20, 247, 332

Page 11 of 34

Civil Law Cases Arts. 12-14 Trece Martires and Friends

FACTS: Members of the PNP Narcotics Command received information that one Jun (Doria) was engaged in
illegal drug activities, so they decided to entrap and arrest him in a buy-bust operation. He was arrested. They
frisked him but did not find the marked bills on him, and upon inquiry, he revealed that he left it at the house
of his associate Neneth (Gaddao), so he led the police team to her house.
The team found the door open and a woman inside the house. Jun identified her as Neneth, and she was
asked by SPO1 Badua about the marked money as PO3 Manlangit looked over her house (he was still outside
the house). Standing by the door, PO3 Manlangit noticed a carton box under the dining table. One of the box
s flaps was open, and inside it was something wrapped in plastic, and it appeared similar to the marijuana
earlier sold to him by Jun. His suspicion aroused, so he entered the house and took hold of the box. He
peeked inside the box and saw 10 bricks of what appeared to be dried marijuana leaves. SPO1 Badua
recovered the marked bills from Neneth and they arrested her. The bricks were examined and they were
found to be dried marijuana leaves.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Florencio Doria and Violeta Gaddao with violation of RA 6425 (Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972), Section 4 (Sale, Administration, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Prohibited
Drugs] in relation to Section 21 [Attempt and Conspiracy). Hence, the automatic review.
ISSUE: Whether or not Violeta Gaddao is exempted from being convicted of violation of Section 4, in relation
to Section 21 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 by absolutory cause.
HELD: YES. Gaddao was arrested solely on the basis of the alleged identification made by Doria. Despite the
police claiming that it was a hot pursuit and there was no need of a warrant of arrest, Gaddao was not found
committing any crime and did not even flee from the policemen for she was only doing her daily chores.
Gaddao s warrantless arrest was illegal because she was arrested solely on the basis of the alleged
identification made by Doria. Doria did not point to her as his associate in the drug business, but as the person
with whom he left the marked bills. This identification does not necessarily mean that Gaddao conspired with
Doria in pushing drugs. If there is no showing that the person who effected the warrantless arrest had
knowledge of facts implicating the person arrested to the perpetration of the criminal offense, the arrest is
legally objectionable. Since the warrantless arrest of Gaddao was illegal, the search of her person and home
and the subsequent seizure of the marked bills and marijuana cannot be deemed legal as an incident to her
arrest.
People vs. Ural Art. 13 Mitigating (Lack of Intention to commit wrong)
FACTS:
Domingo Ural, a detention officer called Napola, the deceased out of his cell as the former got irritated to the
latter on his drunkenness. Ural boxed the deceased and sustained injuries which caused him stumbled on the
ground. After a short interval, he returned with a bottle. He poured its contents on Napolas recumbent body.
Then, he ignited it with a match and left the cell. Napola screamed in agony. He shouted for help. Nobody
came to succor him. Thereafter, Mrs. Napola, when learned from her neighbors on the incident. Upon arrival,
Ural allowed her to bring Napola to the dispensary where he was treated. But later Napola died due to third
degree burn inflicted by the defendant.
ISSUE: Whether or not the defendant by mitigating circumstance has no intention to kill the victim
RULING: YES. It is manifested from the proven facts that the accused had no intent to kill the victim. His design
was only to maltreat him may be because in his drunken condition he was making a nuisance of himself inside
the detention cell. When the accused realized the fearful consequences of his felonious act, he allowed the
victim to secure medical treatment at the municipal dispensary.
Page 12 of 34

Civil Law Cases Arts. 12-14 Trece Martires and Friends

Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong offsets the generic aggravating, circumstance of abuse of his official
position. Nevertheless, the trial court properly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua which is the
medium period of the penalty for murder.
People vs Callet (Article 13- Lack of Intent to commit so grave a wrong)
Facts: One afternoon, the victim Alfredo Senador, his 12-year old son, Lecpoy, and one Eduardo Perater were
at the flea market of a barangay in Negros Oriental. There were many people in the vicinity with some playing
cara y cruz while others were playing volleyball. The three were watching cara y cruz when Callet suddenly
appeared behind Alfredo and stabbed the latter on the left shoulder near the base of the neck with a 9-inch
hunting knife. Alfredo managed to walk away but died shortly after. The barangay Tanods arrested the
accused and after the trial, he was found guilty of murder. Caller appealed and cited one of his reasons that
the RTC erred in failing to consider that he did not intend to commit so grave a wrong.
Issue: Whether or not the accused should be given the benefit of mitigating circumstances of acting without
intention to commit so grave a wrong
Held: No. The Court was not persuaded with the petitioners claims. The Court ruled that the lack of intent to
commit a wrong so grave is an internal state. It is weighed based on the weapon used, the part of the body
injured, the injury inflicted and the manner it is inflicted. The fact that the accused used a 9-inch hunting knife
in attacking the victim from behind, without giving him an opportunity to defend himself, clearly shows that
he intended to do what he actually did, and he must be held responsible therefor, without the benefit of this
mitigating circumstance.

People v Leonor Art. 13 Sufficient Provocation
FACTS: Leonor with intent to gain and against the will of complainant Ma. Teresa Tarlengco and by means of
force, violence and intimidation employed upon the person of said complainant did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously divest her cash money worth P900.00 and Titus wrist watch valued at an
undetermined amount, belonging to said Ma. Teresa Tarlengco, to the damage and prejudice of the latter, in
the aforementioned amount; that on the occasion of the said Robbery, the above-named accused, with intent
to kill, without justifiable reason, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and
stab said Ma. Teresa Tarlengco, thereby inflicting upon the latter serious stab wounds which caused her death.
In the morning of May 15, 1995, Tarlengco was in her office when Leonor came in and inquire about tooth
extraction; after that, he left. When he came back, Tarlengco told him to wait as she prepare her instruments.
However, Leonor barged in and demanded for money. Dr. Tarlengco told him where the money is; upon
hearing this, Leonor stabbed the doctor and grabbed her watch. As the culprit leaves, Tarlengco shouted
which caught the attention of the security guard and other people; Leonor, then, was caught, however, he
confessed that he did not want to commit such crime, but his family badly needs a money. On the testimony
made by the accused himself, he stated that on the day of the commotion, he was there to fetch his family,
but with an aching tooth, decided to find a dental clinic. He found first the clinic of the deceased and asked for
the price. Having no enough money, he negotiated with the deceased if he can pay P100 instead of P150. At
first, the doctor did not agree but as he was leaving, agreed on his price. He was then asked by Tarlengco to
wait as she prepares the instrument. Just as the doctor was about to inject the anesthesia, she remarked that
she once again change her mind and would charge the accused with P150. Leonor, then, pushed Tarlengco,
which caused the latter to be angry and cursed him. As Leonor was making his way out of the clinic, Dr.
Tarlengco cursed and pushed him, at which moment he blacked out. He then sensed that the dentist was in
pain, and he saw blood spurting. He realized that he had stabbed the dentist. In shock, he stepped back, lost
Page 13 of 34

Civil Law Cases Arts. 12-14 Trece Martires and Friends

the grip on his fan knife, and ran out of the clinic and out of the building. When he looked back at the clinic, he
saw Dr. Tarlengco shouting for help. A security guard, with his shotgun aimed at Leonor, ran after the latter.
During the investigation, Leonor admitted that he had stabbed Dr. Tarlengco, but denied that he had taken
P900 and a Titus wristwatch from the victim. He was surprised when later, he was informed by Assistant Public
Prosecutor Elizabeth Yu Guray that he would be charged with Robbery with homicide, not homicide only.
Furthermore, he stated that the testimonies of the prosecutions were inconsistent; citing that the sworn
statement of Baquilod failed to mention that he retrieved a Titus wristwatch and P900 pesos, and that the
deceased shouted that she was stabbed, and have did not mentioned about being robbed.
ISSUE: Whether or not Leonor killed Dr. Tarlengco by reason or on the occasion of a robbery with the use of
violence against or intimidation of a person
HELD: Yes. However, the Court modified the penalty. The defendant claimed he has no criminal liability given
the mitigation circumstance that he had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as what he committed; and
that he having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation
[Article 13 (Circumstance No. 3 and 6)]. Furthermore, he argued that he had voluntarily surrendered himself to
a person in authority [Art. 13 (7)]. However, there were no merits on the testament of the accused. The Court
also stated that obfuscation results to losing control, contrary to what the accused stated that he momentarily
blacked out and instantly found his fan knife embedded on Dr. Tarlengcos chest. In addition, there were no
records stating that Leonor voluntarily surrendered. The penalty for robbery with homicide is reclusion
perpetua to death. There being no evidence of aggravating or mitigating circumstance against or in favor of
accused, the lower of the two indivisible penalties shall be imposed, without the benefit of the Indeterminate
Sentence Law.
People v Espina, Art 13. Sufficient Provocation
FACTS: In the afternoon of September 30, 1992, the members of an association locally known as theripa-ripa
went to the house of Eufornia Pagas in Bohol for their scheduled contribution to fund intended for a wedding
celebration. Among present thereat were Romeo Bulicatin, Rogelio Espina andSamsung Abuloc who were
having a drinking spree and playing cards. Romeo Bulcatin asked Espina to buy 3 bottles of Kalafu wine
which he acceded. After they have emptied their wines, Bulcatin then asked Espina to buy another 3 bottles
again which the he refused to obey. Romeo Bulcatin then proceeded to where Espina was playing card and
without warning, urinated on the latter and clipped him under his arms. Espina went home to avoid in any
altercation. At around 9:00 p.m. in the same evening, while they were still having a drinking spree at the store
of Eurofina Pagas, accused-appellant was outside saying Borgs, get out because I have something to
say.Three of them went down and at the juncture, when Romeo Bulcatin was still at the stairway, Espina shot
him at the back and was chased after receiving another 2 shots.
Samson ran away from the scene of the incident and upon reaching the house of Poloy Concha, he saw Romeo
outside the house asking for help. Samson asked some of residents to help him bring Romeo to barangay
Cawayanan. They loaded Romeo in a rattan cradle and upon reaching the said barangay at about 3:00 oclock
of the following morning, they transferred him to the vehicle owned by a certain Emiliano Fucanan. From the
said barangay, Romeo was taken to the house of Mayor Placing Mascarinas in Poblacion, Tubigon, Bohol
where he was transferred to the ambulance which took him to the Celestino Gallares Memorial Hospital in
Tagbilaran City. On the way to the hospital, Felix Celmar asked Romeo what happened to him and the latter
answered that he was shot by accused-appellant.
ISSUE: WON mitigating circustances be appreciated in favor of the accused.
Page 14 of 34

Civil Law Cases Arts. 12-14 Trece Martires and Friends

HELD: Accused is Guilty of the crime of murder, having his sentenced lowered to an Indeterminate penalty of 8
years to 17 years, four months and one day.The court correctly appreciated the mitigating circumstance of
having acted in immediate vindication of grave offense. The accused was urinated by the victim in front of the
guests. The act of the victim,which undoubtedly insulted and humiliated the accused, came within the purview
of a grave offense.Thus, this mitigating circumstance should be appreciated in favour of the accused.
In convicting the accused-appellant, the trial court appreciated the special aggravating circumstance of use of
unlicensed firearms, pursuant to R.A. 8294. Accused-appellant should be sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua.
The amendatory provision cannot be applied to the accused, lestit acquires the character of an ex post facto
law. Likewise, the court erred in treating alevosia merely asa generic aggravating circumstance, more so in
offsetting the same by the generic mitigatingcircumstance of having committed the crime in immediate
vindication of grave offense.
People v Diokno - Art. 13 - Immediate Vindication of Grave Offense
FACTS: The deceased Yu Hiong was a engaged to Salome Diokno for about a year, she invited him to elope
with her. Yu Hiong accepted the invitation but he told Salome that her father was angry with him, but Salome
told him "No matter, I will be responsible". The elopers stayed in San Pablo, Laguna.
Roman Diokno telegraphed his father Epifanio Diokno, who was in Manila, informing him that Salome had
eloped with the Chinese Yu Hiong. Epifanio and Roman went to Laguna in search of the elopers. Having been
informed that the elopers are staying at the house of Antonio Layco, they went there. Upon arriving near the
house, they saw Yu Hiong coming down the stairs. When Yu Hiong saw them he ran upstairs and they pursued
him. As they overtake Yu Hiong, Yu Hiong fell on his knees and implored for pardon. Roman stabbed him at
the back and in the left side. Epifanio stabbed him once, Yu Hiong fell on the landing stairs of the balcony, and
there he was again stabbed repeatedly. Roman told his father that it is enough then Yu Hiong lost
conciousness.
A policeman came because the neighbors of the chinese alerted them but he only caught Epifanio, and
Epifanio admitted that he stabbed Yu Hiong. Roman had left before the policeman arrived and he was not
located until after three days.
Yu Hiong died after 4days.
Issue: WON there is Immediate vindication of grave offense as per art. 13
Held: Yes. The presence of the fifth mitigating circumstance of article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, that is,
immediate vindication of a grave offense to said accused, may be taken into consideration in favor of the two
accused, because although the elopement took place on January 4, 1935, and the aggression on the 7th of said
month and year, the offense did not cease while Salome's whereabouts remained unknown and her marriage
to the deceased unlegalized. Therefore, there was no interruption from the time the offense was committed
to the vindication thereof. Our opinion on this point is based on the fact that the herein accused belong to a
family of old customs to whom the elopement of a daughter with a man constitutes a grave offense to their
honor and causes disturbance of the peace and tranquility of the home and at the same time spreads
uneasiness and anxiety in the minds of the members thereof.
Other mitigating circumstances:
The presence of the sixth mitigating circumstance of said article 13, consisting in having acted upon an impulse
so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or ofuscation, may also be taken into consideration in favor
Page 15 of 34

Civil Law Cases Arts. 12-14 Trece Martires and Friends

of the accused. The fact that the accused saw the deceased run upstairs when he became aware of their
presence, as if he refused to deal with them after having gravely offended them, was certainly a stimulus
strong enough to produce in their mind a fit of passion which blinded them and led them to commit the crime
with which they are charged, as held by the Supreme Court of Spain in similar cases in its decisions of February
3, 1888, July 9, 1898, February 8, 1908, May 25, 1910, July 3, 1909, and in other more recent ones.
The seventh circumstance of article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, consisting in having surrendered himself
immediately to the agents of persons in authority, should also be taken into consideration in favor of the
accused Epifanio Diokno.
Wherefore, this court declares the accused Epifanio Diokno and Roman Diokno guilty of the crime of homicide
and sentences each of them to an indeterminate penalty from two years and one day of prision correccional
to eight years and one day of prision mayor, crediting them with one-half of the time during which they have
undergone preventive imprisonment


US v. Ampar - Art. 13 Immediate Vindication of Grave Offense
Facts: A fiesta was in progress in the barrio and roast pig was being served. The accused, a seventy year old
man named Clemente Ampar, proceeded to the kitchen and asked Modesto Patobo for some of the delicacy.
Patobo's answer was; "There is no more. Come here and I will make roast pig of you." The effect of this on the
accused as explained by him in his confession was, "Why was he doing like that, I am not a child." With this as
the provocation, a little later while the said Modesto Patobo was squatting down, the accused came up behind
him and struck him on the head with an ax, causing death the following day.
The court gave the accused the benefit of a mitigating circumstance which on cursory examination would not
appear to be justified. This mitigating circumstance was that the act was committed in the immediate
vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the felony.
Issue: Whether or not the mitigating circumstance was applied correctly
Held: Yes. The authorities give us little assistance in arriving at a conclusion as to whether this circumstance
was rightly applied. That there was immediate vindication of whatever one may term the remarks of Patobo to
the accused is admitted. Whether these remarks can properly be classed as "a grave offense" is more
uncertain.
The supreme court of Spain held the words "tan ladron eres tu como tu padre" (As a thief are you like your
father) to be a grave offense. We consider that these authorities hardly put the facts of the present case in
their proper light. The offense which the defendant was endeavoring to vindicate would to the average person
be considered as a mere trifle. But to this defendant, an old man, it evidently was a serious matter to be made
the butt of a joke in the presence of so many guests.
Under Art. 13. Mitigating circumstances. The following are mitigating circumstances;
5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the
felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees.
Hence, it is believed that the lower court very properly gave defendant the benefit of a mitigating
circumstance, and correctly sentenced him to the minimum degree of the penalty provided for the crime of
murder.
Page 16 of 34

Civil Law Cases Arts. 12-14 Trece Martires and Friends

People v Pajares Art. 13 Immediate vindication of grave offense

Facts: That on or about the 11th day of October, 1985, at night time, purposely sought to insure and better
accomplish his criminal design, in the City of Manila, Philippines, Leandro Pajares, conspiring and
confederating together with five (5) others whose true names, real identities, and present whereabouts are
still unknown and helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to
kill, evident premeditation, and treachery, attack, assault, and use personal violence upon one Diosdado
Viojan, by then and there mauling him and hitting him with a baseball bat at the back of the head, a vital part
of the body, thereby inflicting upon the said Diosdado Viojan a club wound on the head which was the direct
and immediate cause of his death. The trial court finds Pajares guilty of GUILTY of the crime of Murder and
sentences him to suffer imprisonment of reclusion perpetua. Pajares asserts in his appeal that the trial court
gravely erred in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua upon him. He avers that such a penalty is
tantamount to a cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment which is prohibited by the Constitution. Appellant
points out that hours before the clubbing incident, Roberto Pajares, appellants younger brother, was mauled
by the group of Diosdado Viojan. The mauling of the latter is a big insult and truly offending to the appellant
and his family. Hence, the clubbing of Diosdado Viojan by herein appellant was a vindication of the grave
offense committed against his family, a mitigating circumstance under paragraph 5 of Article 13 of the Revised
Penal Code. Considering further that the appellant was just nineteen (19) years old at the time he committed
the offense.
Issue: Whether or not the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense can be
appreciated in the favor of accused-appellant.
Held: No. While it may be true that appellants brother Roberto Pajares was mauled by the companions of the
deceased at about morning of October 11, 1985, it must be emphasized that there is a lapse of about ten (10)
hours between said incident and the killing of Diosdado Viojan. Such interval of time was more than sufficient
to enable appellant to recover his serenity. Hence, the mitigating circumstances of immediate vindication of a
grave offense cannot be appreciated in his favor.
PEOPLE v ADLAWAN Art. 13 Passion or Obfuscation
Facts: At around 2:00 in the morning, there was a commotion outside the fence of a disco area. Adlawan saw
his father, lying on the ground unconscious and with a bloodied face. Adlawan dashed to his father whom he
thought was already dead. As he tried to lift him, he saw the Nequito Ortizano (deceased) about 2 1/2 arms
length away, holding a gun and told him, Do you want to follow your father? ]Thereafter, Adlawan lunged at
Nequito, twisted his hand, and successfully unarmed the latter. Adlawan pointed the gun at the Nequito, the
latter raised his hands, but the former fired the gun, hitting the deceased on the chest. The latter fell on a
shallow canal and landed on his belly with his head resting on the bank of the canal. Adlawan followed the
deceased, turned the latters head and delivered a fatal shot hitting him above the right ear. Thereafter,
Adlawan surrendered the gun to a group of Barangay Tanod. RTC- murder (because of treachery and evident
premeditation)
ISSUE: WON the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation should be appreciated to mitigate accused-
appellant's criminal liability
HELD: YES. The requisites of this mitigating circumstance are: (1) that there be an act, both unlawful and
sufficient to produce such a condition of mind; and (2) said act which produced the obfuscation was not far
removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator
might recover his normal equanimity.
Page 17 of 34

Civil Law Cases Arts. 12-14 Trece Martires and Friends

In the case at bar, accused-appellant thought his father whose face was bloodied and lying unconscious on the
ground was dead.Surely, such a scenario is sufficient to trigger an uncontrollable burst of legitimate passion.
His act, therefore, of shooting the deceased, right after learning that the latter was the one who harmed his
father, satisfies the requisite of the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation under Paragraph 6,
Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code.
The penalty for Murder at the time of the commission of the offense is Reclusion Temporal in its maximum
period to Death. There being one mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation, and no aggravating
circumstance to offset it, the penalty shall be imposed in its minimum period, i.e., Reclusion Temporal
maximum.
US v Hicks Art. 13 Passion or Obfuscation
Facts: Augustus Hicks, an Afro-American, and Agustina Sola, a Christian Moro woman, illicitly lived together.
When trouble arose between them, Agustina quitted Hick's house, and, separating from him, went to live with
her brother-in-law. A few days later she contracted new relations with another negro named Wallace Current,
a corporal in the Army who then went to live with her in the said house. Augustus Hicks together with Lloyd
Nickens went to the said house and confronted his old mistress who was in her room with Corporal Current.
Current approached Hicks and they shook hands and had a conversation and as Corporal Current saw that
Hicks was drawing a revolver from his trousers' pocket, he caught him by the hand, but the latter, snatching
his hand roughly away. Current jumped into the room, hiding himself behind the partition, just as Hicks drew
his revolver and fired at Agustina Sola who was close by in the sala of the house. The bullet struck her in the
left side and died in a little more than an hour later. The latter immediately fled from the house and gave
himself up to the chief of police of the town.
Issue: WON, the accused committed a crime of murder with qualifying circumstance of treachery and pre-
meditation WON, the accused is qualified with mitigating circumstances.
Held: Yes, the above-stated facts, which have been fully proven in the present case, constitute the crime of
murder, defined and punished by article 403 of the Penal Code, In that the woman Agustina Sola met a violent
death, with the qualifying circumstance of treachery (alevosa), she being suddenly and roughly attacked and
unexpectedly fired upon with a 45-caliber revolver, at close, if not point blank range, while the injured woman
was unarmed and unprepared. The circumstance of premeditation is, however, manifest and evident by
reason of the open acts executed by the accused. According to the testimony of Gatchey and Whited, Hicks
asked leaved to be absent from the canteen where he was working. According to Whited, who was in Hicks'
house about noon, heard the accused repeatedly say, referring to the deceased, that her time had come,
adding that he would rather see her dead than in the arms of another man. All the foregoing circumstances
conclusively prove that the accused, deliberately and after due reflection had resolved to kill the woman who
had left him for another man. No, no mitigating circumstance is present, not even that mentioned in
paragraph 7 of article 9 of the Penal Code, to wit, loss of reason and self-control produced by jealousy as
alleged by the defense, inasmuch as the only causes which mitigate the criminal responsibility for the loss of
selfcontrol are such as originate from legitimate feelings, .not those which arise from vicious, unworthy, and
immoral passions. The judgment was affirmed.
US v Dela Cruz Art. 13 - Passion or Obfuscation
Facts: Hilario Dela Cruz, defendant, was convicted of homicide. The convict, in the heat of passion, killed the
deceased, who had theretofore been his querida (concubine or lover) upon discovering her in flagrante in
carnal communication with a mutual acquaintance.
Page 18 of 34

Civil Law Cases Arts. 12-14 Trece Martires and Friends

Issue: Whether or not the defendant acted under passion and obfuscation.
Held: Yes. The Court held that the impulse upon which defendant acted and which naturally "produced
passion and obfuscation" was the sudden revelation that his partner was untrue to him, and his discovery of
her in flagrante in the arms of another. As said by the supreme court of Spain in cited decision, this was a
"sufficient impulse" in the ordinary and natural course of things to produce the passion and obfuscation which
the law declares to be one of the extenuating circumstances to be taken into consideration by the court.
Thus, the Court finding mitigating circumstances set out in subsection 7 of article 9 (now, Par. 6 Art. 13 of RPC)
modified and reduced the penalty of the defendant to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal.


People v. Crisostom Art 13 Illness
FACTS: On Christmas day, December 25, 1967, between 6:00 and 7:00 o'clock in the evening, while Eugenio
Crisostomo was passing near the house of Romeo Geronimo, he met the latter and invited him to have a drink
in the place of a friend. Romeo declined the offer. Suddenly Eugenio rushed towards Romeo who was then
standing near a store facing the street with his back towards Eugenio and shot him with a .22 caliber revolver
at a distance of one (1) meter. Romeo fell to the ground mortally wounded while Eugenio ran away. By-
standers who were near the place who were all friends of both the victim and assailant came to the aid of the
fallen victim and brought him to the Reyes Hospital where the doctor pronounced the victim dead upon
arrival.
Eugenio was charged of murder. After the arraignment wherein accused entered a plea of not guilty and again
during the trial, the accused signified his intention to withdraw his plea of not guilty to the charge of murder
and to substitute it with a plea of guilty to a lesser charge of homicide and prayed that he be allowed to prove
the mitigating circumstances. The same plea was made by the accused after the prosecution had rested its
case but the fiscal did not agree. Thus, the court denied the petition. Thereafter, the CFI of Bulacan convicted
him of murder without any modifying circumstance.
Eugenio appealed the decision, contending that the lower court erred in not finding him entitled to the
mitigating circumstance of (1) drunkenness, (2) voluntary surrender, (3) guilty plea and (4) presence of two
ordinary mitigating circumstances without the presence of any aggravating circumstance.
For drunkenness, he asserts that he had been drinking from one o'clock in the afternoon on that Christmas
day and that he had been drunk five (5) times in his entire life so that it is not habitual.
For voluntary surrender, he argued that he should be credited with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender stating that although he hid himself from the authorities for ten (10) days, he voluntarily
surrendered to the authorities thereafter upon the advice of his parents.
ISSUE:
WON the lower court erred in not finding Eugenio entitled to the mitigating circumstance of (1) drunkenness,
(2) voluntary surrender, (3) guilty plea and (4) presence of two ordinary mitigating circumstances without the
presence of any aggravating circumstance.
HELD:
1. No. The allegation of the appellant that he was drunk when he committed the offense is self-serving and
uncorroborated. Besides, appellant admitted that at that time he was only dizzy, and that he was on the way
Page 19 of 34

Civil Law Cases Arts. 12-14 Trece Martires and Friends

to another drinking spree. Obviously he had not drunk enough. He remembers the details of the shooting, the
time it started and ended, how much wine he imbibed and the persons who were with him. He realized the
gravity of the offense he committed so he fled and hid from the authorities. He sought sanctuary in the chapel
of Sto. Rosario, boarded a tricycle going to the poblacion and took a La Mallorca bus to Manila. All these are
acts of a man whose mental capacity has not been impaired.
2. Yes. The testimony of the appellant is not disputed by the prosecution that while in hiding, upon the advice
of his parents, he voluntarily surrendered on January 4, 1968, so he was detained in the municipal jail of
Hagonoy. The Court agrees that the appellant is entitled to this mitigating circumstance.
3. No. he cannot be credited with the mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty to a lesser offense of the
charge of homicide. The requisites of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty are: (1) that the
offender spontaneously confessed his guilt; (2) that the confession of guilt was made in open court, that is,
before the competent court that is to try the case; and (3) that the confession of guilt was made prior to the
presentation of evidence for the prosecution.
In the present case the appellant offered to enter a plea of guilty to the lesser offense of homicide only after
some evidence of the prosecution had been presented. He reiterated his offer after the prosecution rested its
case. This is certainly not mitigating.
4. No. The error where the appellant claims that he should be entitled to the privileged mitigating
circumstance is consequently without merit. The offense committed is the crime of murder as the killing was
qualified by treachery.
People vs Javier Art. 13 Illness
Facts: Dec 1954: Accused-appellant Eduardo Javier was married to Florentina Laceste. They begot 10 children.
On June 96, after 41 yrs of marriage, Javier admitted killing his wife.
Testimonies of SPO1 Rotelio Pacho, a desk investigator, and Consolacion Javier Panit & Alma Javier,
daughters of the sps: (1)Between 23am, Consolacion, who lived 10-15m away, heard her mom shouting,
your father is going to kill me!. She ran outside & met her sister Alma who was weeping & informed her of
their parents quarrel. (2)Together, they went to their Brother Manuels house, about 70-80m away from their
parents house. (3) Upon reaching the latter, Manuel, who entered first, found the lifeless body of his mother
in their bedroom and his father, wounded in the abdomen.(4)Their father, Eduardo, confessed to son Manuel
that he killed his wife and thereafter and stabbed himself.
April 1997: RTC held Javier guilty of the crime of parricide and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death,
and to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of PhP50K as moral damages and PhP21, 730 as actual
expenses. In his appeal, Javier claims he killed his wife because he was suffering from insomnia for a month
and at the time of the killing, his mind went totally blank and he did not know what he was doing. He claims
that he was insane then.
Issue: WON accused-appellant Javier can claim mitigating circumstances of illness and of passion and
obfuscation?
Held: No to both. On illness, since Javier has already admitted to the killing, it is incumbent upon him to prove
the claimed mitigating circumstance. OSG found no sufficient evidence or medical finding to support his claim.
For the mitigating circumstance of illness of the offender to be appreciated, the law requires the presence of
the ff requisites: (1) Illness must diminish the exercise of the willpower of the offender, and (2) Such illness
should not deprive the offender of consciousness of his acts.
Page 20 of 34

Civil Law Cases Arts. 12-14 Trece Martires and Friends

For the circumstance of passion and obfuscation of the offender to be appreciated, the law requires the
presence of the ff requisites: (1)There should be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition
of mind, and (2) Such act w/c produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the
crime by a considerable length of time, during w/c the perpetrator might recover his moral equanimity.
The defense never presented any medical record of the accused nor was a psychiatrist presented to validate
the defense of insanity. None of the elements-requisites were proved to be present & in his testimony, Javier
even stated that he was not jealous of his wife. Equally important, the defense, during the trial, never alleged
the above-claimed mitigating circumstances of illness & passion & obfuscation, thus weakening the case of
accused-appellant. The alleged mitigating circumstances are mere afterthought to whittle (to shape) down his
criminal liability. Appealed decision affirmed w/ modification. Javier to suffer reclusion perpetua and Php.50k
imposed as civil indemnity instead of moral damages.
NOTES: There is passional obfuscation when the crime is committed due to an uncontrollable burst of passion
so provoked by prior unjust or improper acts, or due to a legitimate stimulus so powerful as to overcome
reason.
People v Narvasa Art. 13. Analogous Circumstances
FACTS: Appellants Felicisimo Narvasa and Jimmy Orania seek the reversal of the October 11, 1996 Decision of
the Regional Trial Court finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of firearms in its
aggravated form and sentencing them to reclusion perpetua.
The above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill,
armed with high powered guns, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously shoot SPO3 PRIMO
CAMBA which caused his instantaneous death as a consequence, to the damage and prejudice of his heirs.
Felicisimo Narvasa and Jimmy Orania were arrested, but Mateo Narvasa remained at large. When arraigned,
the two appellants, assisted by their counsel, pleaded not guilty. Trial proceeded in due course. Thereafter,
the court a quo rendered the assailed Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
In consideration of the foregoing premises and the evidence presented, this Court finds both accused
Felicisimo Narvasa in Criminal Case guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal possession of
firearms.
Appellants counsel then filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals. The trial court deemed the appeal
filed by Felicisimo Narvasa and Jimmy Orania perfected, and effected the transmittal of the case records to the
Court of Appeals. Realizing the mistake, the Court of Appeals subsequently forwarded the records to this
Court.
ISSUE: WON The appellants is guilty of homicide with the special aggravating circumstances.
HELD: YES. The assailed Decision is hereby MODIFIED. For the death of Primo Camba, Appellants Felicisimo
Narvasa and Jimmy Orania are found GUILTY of HOMICIDE with the special aggravating circumstance of using
unlicensed firearms. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, they are each sentenced to twelve (12) years
of prision mayor, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum; and ordered to pay
the heirs of Primo Camba P50,000 as death indemnity. However, the award of moral damages is hereby
DELETED.
In this case, the court considered as necessary component of the crimes of illegal possession in their
aggravated form, as the same merely an element of principal offense of illegal possession of fireames in its
aggravated form which is the graver offense.
Page 21 of 34

Civil Law Cases Arts. 12-14 Trece Martires and Friends

Canta v People Art. 13. Analogous Circumstances

FACTS: Narciso Gabriel acquired from his half-sister Erlinda Monter a cow, subject of the case, upon its birth
on March 10, 1984. The cow remained under the care of Erlinda Monter for some time. Subsequently, Narciso
gave the care and custody of the animal, first, to Generoso Cabonce, from October 24, 1984 to March 17,
1985; then to Maria Tura, from May 17, 1985 to March 2, 1986; and lastly, to Gardenio Agapay, from March 3,
1986 until March 14, 1986 when it was lost. It appears that at 5 oclock in the afternoon of March 13, 1986,
Agapay took the cow to graze in the mountain of Pilipogan in Barangay Candatag, about 40 meters from his
hut. However, when he came back for it at past 9 oclock in the morning of March 14, 1986, Agapay found the
cow gone. He found hoof prints which led to the house ofFilomeno Vallejos. He was told that petitioner
Exuperancio Canta had taken the animal. Upon instructions of the owner, Gardenio and Maria Tura went to
recover the animal from petitioners wife, but they were informed that petitioner had delivered the cow to his
father, Florentino Canta, who was at that time barangay captain of Laca, Padre Burgos, Southern Leyte.
Accordingly, the two went to Florentinos house. On their way, they met petitioner who told them that if
Narciso was the owner, he should claim the cow himself. Narciso and petitioner Exuperancio were called to an
investigation. Petitioner admitted taking the cow but claimed that it was his and that it was lost on December
3, 1985. He presented two certificates of ownership, one dated March 17, 1986 and another dated February
27, 1985, to support his claim. Narciso presented a certificate of ownership issued on March 9, 1986, signed by
the municipal treasurer, in which the cow was described as two years old and female. On the other hand,
petitioner claimed he acquired the animal under an agreement which he had with Pat. Diosdado Villanueva,
that petitioner take care of a female cow of Pat. Villanueva in consideration for which petitioner would get a
calf if the cow produced two offsprings. Petitioner claimed that the cow in question was his share and that it
was born on December 5, 1984. This cow, however, was lost on December 2, 1985. Petitioner said he reported
the loss to the police of Macrohon. Certificate of Ownership was, however, denied by the municipal treasurer,
who stated that petitioner Exuperancio Canta had no Certificate of Ownership of Large Cattle. Telen testified
that he issued the Certificate of Ownership of Large Cattle to petitioner on March 24, 1986 but, at the instance
of petitioner, he (Telen) antedated it to February 27, 1985.
ISSUE: WON Exuperancio Canta (PETITIONER) can claim mitigating circumstance analogous to voluntary
surrender for his violation of P. D. No. 533, otherwise known as the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974.
HELD: Yes, Decision of the Court of Appeals should be modified in two respects. First, accused-appellant
should be given the benefit of the mitigating circumstance analogous to voluntary surrender. The
circumstance of voluntary surrender has the following elements: (1) the offender has not actually been
arrested; (2) the offender surrenders to a person in authority or to the latters agent; and (3) the surrender is
voluntary. In the present case, petitioner Exuperancio Canta had not actually been arrested. In fact, no
complaint had yet been filed against him when he surrendered the cow to the authorities. It has been
repeatedly held that for surrender to be voluntary, there must be an intent to submit oneself unconditionally
to the authorities, showing an intention to save the authorities the trouble and expense that his search and
capture would require. In petitioners case, he voluntarily took the cow to the municipal hall of Padre Burgos
to place it unconditionally in the custody of the authorities and thus saved them the trouble of having to
recover the cow from him. This circumstance can be considered analogous to voluntary surrender and should
be considered in favor of petitioner.
Second, the trial court correctly found petitioner guilty of violation of 2(c) of P. D. No. 533, otherwise known
as the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974. However, it erred in imposing the penalty of 10 years and 1 day of
prision mayor, as minimum, to 12 years, 5 months and 11 days of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum.
The trial court apparently considered P. D. No. 533 as a special law and applied 1 of the Indeterminate
Page 22 of 34

Civil Law Cases Arts. 12-14 Trece Martires and Friends

Sentence Law, which provides that if the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the
accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by
said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same.
There being one mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstance in the commission of the crime, the
penalty to be imposed in this case should be fixed in its minimum period. Exuperancio Canta is hereby
SENTENCED to suffer a prison term of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional maximum, as
minimum, to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor maximum, as maximum
People vs. Rodil Art. 14. Insult to Public Authorities
FACTS: Lt. Masana together with Fidel, Ligsa, and Mojica was having lunch when their attention was called by
Rodil. Masana, in civilian clothing, went outside and asked Rodil, after identifying himself as a PC officer,
whether the gun that was tucked under his shirt had a license. Instead of answering Rodil attempted to draw
his gun but Fidel grabbed the formers gun from the waist and gave it to Masana. The three went inside the
restaurant and Masana wrote a receipt for the gun and he asked Rodil to sign it but the appellant refused to
do so. Masana refused to return the gun to Rodil and as Masana was about to stand up Rodil pulled out his
dagger and stabbed Masana several times on the chest and stomach causing his death after several hours.
Chief of Police Panaligan of Indang, Cavite, who happened to be taking his lunch in the same restaurant
embraced and/or grabbed the accused from behind, and thereafter wrested the dagger from the accused-
appellant. Immediately thereafter, the Chief of Police brought the accused to the municipal building of Indang,
Cavite.
ISSUE: Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank should be appreciated.
HELD: YES. The aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank should be appreciated because it is obvious that
the victim, PC. Lt. Masana Identified himself as a PC officer to the accused who is merely a member of the
Anti-Smuggling Unit and therefore inferior both in rank and social status to the victim. The term "rank" should
be given its plain, ordinary meaning, and as such, refers to a high social position or standing as a grade in the
armed forces.
In the case at bar, the aggravating circumstance of contempt of, or insult to, public authority under paragraph
2 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code can likewise be appreciated. The evidence of the prosecution clearly
established that Chief of Police Primo Panaligan of Indang was present as he was taking his lunch in the same
restaurant when the incident occurred. As a matter of fact, the said chief of police was the one who embraced
or grabbed the accused from behind, wrested the dagger from him and thereafter brought him to the
municipal building of Indang. And appellant admittedly knew him even then as the town chief of police,
although he now claims that he went to the municipal building to surrender to the chief of police who was not
allegedly in the restaurant during the incident.
Chief of police is considered a public authority or a person in authority for he is vested with jurisdiction or
authority to maintain peace and order and is specifically duty bound to prosecute and to apprehend violators
of the law.
People vs. Tac-an Art. 14 (Insult to Public Authorities)
FACTS: Appellant Renato Tac-an and victim Francis are classmates in third year and close friends and member
of the same gang. Francis withdrew from the Bronx gang. For some apparent reasons, the relationship
between the two turned sour.

Page 23 of 34

Civil Law Cases Arts. 12-14 Trece Martires and Friends

The Mathematics class under Mr. Damaso Pasilbas had just started in Room 15 when Renato suddenly burst
into the room, shut the door and with both hands raised, holding a revolver, shouted Where is Francis?
Renato fired simultaneously shots at Francis but failed and which caused panic to his classmates. On the
fourth time, he succeeded hitting Francis on the head and fell down. Renato then went out of Room and he re-
entered when he learned that the victim was still alive then shot the latters chest.
ISSUE: Whether or not the crime was committed in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities
RULING: NO. This is in the light of considering Mr. Pasilbas, the Math teacher when the incident happened.
The paragraph of Article 152 will show that while a teacher or professor of a public or recognized private
school is deemed to be a person in authority, such teacher or professor is so deemed only for purposes of
application of Articles 148 (direct assault upon a person in authority), and 151 (resistance and disobedience to
a person in authority or the agents of such person) of the Revised Penal Code.
In marked contrast, the first paragraph of Article 152 does not identify specific articles of the Revised Penal
Code for the application of which any person directly vested with jurisdiction, etc. is deemed a person in
authority. Because a penal statute is not to be given a longer reach and broader scope than is called for by
the ordinary meaning of the ordinary words used by such statute, to the disadvantage of an accused, we do
not believe that a teacher or professor of a public or recognized private school may be regarded as a public
authority within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code.
People vs Sto. Tomas 138 SCRA 206 (Article 14-Dwelling)
Facts: A tragedy struck the residence of the Grullas when one evening, Pacito Sto. Tomas went there and shot
Salvacion Grulla, his wife; Consolacion Grulla, his mother in law; and Natividad Grulla, sister in law of the
accused. Salvacion and Consolacion died in the incident while Natividad was able to escaped death but
suffered wounds necessitating hospitalization. The facts are as follows:
Sto. Tomas went to the Gruella residence to ask his wife to go with him, together with their children to Legaspi
City. Consolacion was awakened by the conversation of the spouses and told Pacito that Salvacion will not go
with him as the latter does not want to live with him anymore. Pacito insisted on bringing with him his wife
and children but Salvacion answered that she could not do so because their youngest child Blesilda, then only
seven months old, was with fever. Later that night, Natividad, who was reading in her room heard a series of
gunshots and when she went out to see what happened, she saw Pacito firing at her sister and her mother
was already lifeless on a chair. Natividad pleaded to Pacito to spare the life of his wife but the latter only
reloaded his gun and shot the former who was able to escaped but sustained wounds. The accused was
convicted and filed an appeal claiming one of his reasons that the lower court erred in taking into account the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling in the imposition of penalties.
Issue: Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of dwelling is present in the crime
Held: Yes. The lower court was correct in considering dwelling as an aggravating circumstance in the crime. It
is indisputable that the place where the crimes herein involved were committed is the house of Consolacion
Grulla. It is there where she lives with her daughter, Natividad and where Salvacion was temporarily staying in
order to escape from the brutalities of his husband. The fact that Salvacion's stay in the said place may be
considered as a temporary sojourn adds no validity to appellant's stance on this point. As the court previously
held, the aggravating circumstance of dwelling is present when the appellant killed his wife in the house
occupied by her other than the conjugal home. Therefore the judgement of the lower court was affirmed.
People v Apduhan Art. 14. Dwelling
Page 24 of 34

Civil Law Cases Arts. 12-14 Trece Martires and Friends

FACTS: The accused, together with five other persons, armed with different unlicensed firearms, daggers, and
other deadly weapons, entered the dwelling of the Miano family, attacking, hacking, and shooting Geronimo
Miano and a Norberto Aton, as a result of which, the two died. The group also took cash amounting to P322.
Apduhan, through Atty. Tirol, plead guilty. Apduhan then was found guilty of the complex crime of robbery
with homicide. After Apduhan had pleaded guilty, the defense counsel offered for consideration three
mitigating circumstances, namely, plea of guilty, intoxication, and lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong.
Subsequently, however, the defense withdrew the last mentioned mitigating circumstance after the
prosecution had withdrawn the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
ISSUE: Whether or not the three mitigating circumstances given by the respondent are acceptable
HELD: No. However the Court ruled that there be modification that the death sentence imposed upon
Apolonio Apduhan, Jr. by the court a quo is reduced to reclusion perpetua. There were no merits on the
defense of the respondent, particularly about the intoxication. Thus, intoxication can only be considered as a
mitigating circumstance if it is not habitual or intentional, that is, not subsequent to the plan to commit the
crime. However, to be mitigating the accused's state of intoxication must be proved. In the case at bar the
accused merely alleged that when he committed the offense charged he was intoxicated although he was "not
used to be drunk," this self-serving statement stands uncorroborated. Obviously, it is devoid of any probative
value. To recapitulate, the accused has in his favor only one mitigating circumstance: plea of guilty. As
aforementioned, the defense withdrew its claim of "lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong" and failed to
substantiate its contention that intoxication should be considered mitigating. Hence, plea of guilty (Article
13 Circumstance No. 7) is the only mitigating circumstance that was proven by the defense. That is why, still,
Apduhan was still liable of the crime.
People v Garcia - Art. 14 - Nighttime
FACTS: The legal verdict hinges on the testimony of the lone eyewitness for the prosecution, Mrs. Corazon
Dioquino Paterno, sister of the deceased, Apolonio Dioquino, Jr.
Before the incident which gave rise to this case, Corazon's husband informed her that he saw Apolonio
engaged in a drinking spree with his gang in front of an establishment known as Bill's Place at M. de la Cruz
Street. Pasay City. Corazon surmised that her husband must have been painting the town red ("nag good
time") in that same place. Upon learning this information from her husband, Corazon obtained permission to
leave the house at 3:00 a.m. so she could fetch her brother. At that time, she had not been aware that
Apolonio was in Pasay City; she had been of the belief that he was with his family in Pampanga. She went to
fetch him because she wanted him to escape the untoward influence of his gang. In explaining the rationale
for her noctural mission, she employed in her sworn statement the following language: "Dahil itong si Junior
ay meron na kaming nabalitaan na naaakay ng barkada niya sa paggawa ng hindi mabuti.
On her way, as she rounded the corner of P.C. Santos Street, Corazon saw her brother fleeing a group of about
seven persons, including the two accused, Antonio Garcia and Reynaldo Arviso. She recognized the two
accused because they were forme rgangmates of her brother; in fact, she knew them before the incident by
their aliases of "Tony Manok" and "Rene Bisugo" respectively.
Corazon saw that the chase was led by the two accused, with Antonio carrying a long sharp instrument. When
she ventured to look from where she was hiding, about 20 meters away, she saw the group catch up with her
brother and maltreat him. Some beat him with pieces of wood, others boxed him. Immediately afterwards,
the group scampered away in different directions. Antonio was left behind. He was sitting astride the
prostrate figure of Apolonio, stabbing the latter in the back with his long knife. Corazon was not able to
observe where Antonio later fled, for she could hardly bear to witness the scene.
Page 25 of 34

Civil Law Cases Arts. 12-14 Trece Martires and Friends

When Corazon mustered the courage to approach her brother, she saw that he was bathed in a pool of his
own blood.
ISSUE: WON nocturnity (nighttime) is an aggravating circumstances?
HELD: YES. The offense took place at 3:00 o'clock in the morning. It may therefore be said that it was
committed at night,which covers the period from sunset to sunrise, according to the New Civil Code, Article
13. Is this basis for finding that nocturnity is aggravating? The Revised Penal Code, Article 14, provides that it is
an aggravating circumstance when the crime isc ommitted in the nighttime, whenever nocturnity may
facilitate the commission of the offense. There are two tests fo rnocturnity as an aggravating circumstance:
the objective test, under which nocturnity is aggravating because it facilitates the commission of the offense;
and the subjective test, under which nocturnity is aggravating because it was purposely sought by the
offender. These two tests should be applied in the alternative.
In this case, the subjective test is not passed because there is no showing that the accused purposely sought
the cover of night time. Next, we proceed and apply the objective test, to determine whether nocturnity
facilitated the killing of the victim. A group of men were engaged in a drinking spree, in the course of which
one of them fled, chased by seven others. The criminal assault on the victim at 3:00 a.m. was invited by
nocturnal cover, which handicapped the view of eyewitnesses and encouraged impunity by persuading the
malefactors that it would be difficult to determine their Identity because of the darkness and the relative
scarcity of people in the streets. There circumstances combine to pass the objective test, and theCourt found
that nocturnity is aggravating because it facilitated the commission of the offense. Nocturnity enticed those
with the lust to kill to follow their impulses with the false courage born out of the belief that they could not be
readily identified.

US v Manalinde Art. 14 - Evident Premeditation
FACTS: Juan Igual, a Spaniard, was seated on a chair in the doorway of Sousa's store in Cotabato, Moro
Privince, he suddenly reeived a wound on the head delivered from behind and inflicted by a kris. The
aggressor, the Moro Manalinde, approached a Chinaman named Choa, who was passing along the street, and
as the chinaman was putting down his load in front of the door, attacked him with the same weapon, inflicing
a severe wound in the left shoulder. The Moro, came from a different town, and had entered the town carring
his weapon wrapped up in banana leaves. Both wounded men were taken to the hospital, the Chinaman died
within an hour, the record not stating the result of the would infliced on the Spaniard.
When Manalinde was arrested he pleaded guilty and confessed that he had perpetrated the crime herein
mentioned, stating that his wife had died about one hundred days before and that he had come from his
home in Catumaldu by order of the Datto Rajamudah Mupuck, who had directed him to go juramentado in
Cotabato in order to kill somebody, because the said Mupuck had certain grievances to avenge against a
lieutenant and a sergeant, the said datto further stating that if he, Manalinde, was successful in the matter, he
would give him a pretty woman on his return, but that in case he was captured he was to say that he
performed the killing by order of Maticayo, Datto Piang, Tambal and Inug. In order to carry out his intention to
kill two persons in the town of Cotabato he provided himself with a kris, which he concealed in banana leaves,
and, traveling for a day and a night from his home, upon reaching the town, attacked from behind a Spaniard
who was seated in front of a store and, wounding him, immediately after attacked a Chinaman, who was close
by, just as the latter was placing a tin that he was carrying on the ground and he was about to enter a store
nearby, cutting him on the left shoulder and fleeing at once; he further stated that he had no quarrel with the
assaulted persons.
Page 26 of 34

Civil Law Cases Arts. 12-14 Trece Martires and Friends

Issue: WON Evident premeditation is present in committing Murder to the Chinaman Choa.
Held: Yes. Upon accepting the order and undertaking the journey in order to comply therewith, deliberately
considered and carefully and thoughtfully meditated over the nature and the consequences of the acts which,
under orders received from the said datto, he was about to carry out, and to that end provided himself with a
weapon, concealing it by wrapping it up, and started on a journey of a day and a night for the sole purpose of
taking the life of two unfortunate persons whom he did not know, and with whom he had never had any
trouble; nor did there exist any reason which, to a certain extent, might warrant his perverse deed. The fact
that the arrangement between the instigator and the tool considered the killing of unknown persons, the first
encountered, does not bar the consideration of the circumstance of premeditation.
The nature and the circumstances which characterize the crime, the perversity of the culprit, and the material
and moral injury are the same, and the fact that the victim was not predetermined does not affect nor alter
the nature of the crime. The person having been deprived of his life by deeds executed with deliberate intent,
the crime is considered a premeditated one as the firm and persistent intention of the accused from the
moment, before said death, when he received the order until the crime was committed in manifestly evident.
Even though in a crime committed upon offer of money, reward or promise, premeditation is sometimes
present, the latter not being inherent in the former, and there existing no incompatibility between the two,
premeditation can not necessarily be considered as included merely because an offer of money, reward or
promise was made, for the latter might have existed without the former, the one being independent of the
other.
For the above reasons and in view of the fact that no mitigating circumstance is present to neutralize the
effects of the aggravating ones, it is our opinion that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed with
costs provided however, that the penalty imposed on the culprit shall be executed in accordance with the
provisions of Acts. Nos. 451 and 1577, and that in the event of a pardon being granted he shall likewise be
sentenced to suffer the accessory penalties imposed by article 53 of the Penal Code. So ordered.
People v. Discalsota - Art. 14 Evident Premeditation
Facts: Herbert Suarnaba (victim) along with his Jenny Aplaza, Pedro Ramos and Rowell Lavega went to the
house of Novieboy del Rosario. While peacefully enjoying themselves, they were suddenly startled by shouts
coming from a group of men outside the house. Looking out, they saw about nine (9) men with their leader
shouting: You there, get out and we will kill you!, who was later identified as Sueene Discalsota (accused).
The four (4) teenagers were terrified since they did not know the men who were threatening them nor did
they know of any grudge or misunderstanding between them. They then called Mrs. Del Rosario (Novieboys
mother) then went out and returned with four (4) barangay tanods. The group was then escorted out of the
house by the tanods and were accompanied by two (2) of them and Mrs. Del Rosario.It was already dusk by
that time. The men threatening them were still outside when they went out of the house and they followed
the group.
There was a single trisikad (pedicab) outside and the four (4) boarded it. The pedicab had not left when
Rowell saw a man running towards them. The four jumped out of the pedicab when Mrs. Del Rosario and the
people there shouted at them to run. Despite efforts by the barangay tanods to stop him, the man rushed
headlong towards Rowell and the victim. He was about to strike at Rowell when Mrs. Del Rosario pushed
Rowell to run. Then, when Mrs. Del Rosario fell down as if to faint, the victim helped her stand up. Mrs. Del
Rosario then told the victim to run and he ran around the pedicab more than a foot long. While the victim was
running away trying to escape, the man holding the knife caught up with him and thrust his knife at the fleeing
victim who was hit at the back. The victim fell and crawled, while gasping for breath, and he managed to enter
Page 27 of 34

Civil Law Cases Arts. 12-14 Trece Martires and Friends

a house pleading for help. They escaped being hurt when they sought refuge in the house of a friend. The
victim was rushed to the hospital but died a few minutes upon arrival.
The RTC ruled that appellant had positively been identified by the prosecution witnesses as the culprit
responsible for the death of Herbert Suarnaba. It gave no credence to the denial and alibi proffered by
appellant. The RTC appreciated evident premeditation qualifying the killing to murder.
Appellant contends that evident premeditation should not have been appreciated by the trial court as a
qualifying circumstance.
Issue: Whether or not the lower court erred in holding that evident premeditation qualified the killing to
murder
Held: Yes. The court ruled that it is settled that qualifying circumstances cannot be presumed, but must be
established by clear and convincing evidence as conclusively as the killing itself.
For evident premeditation to be appreciated, there must be proof, as clear as the evidence of the crime itself
of the following elements thereof, viz: (a) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (b) an
act manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his determination, and (c) sufficient lapse of time
between the determination and execution to allow himself to reflect upon the consequences of his act.
In this case, the first two elements of evident premeditation are present. As found by the RTC, the time
appellant determined to commit the crime was when he started shouting at the victim and the latters
companions: You, there, get out and we will kill you! By staying outside the house and following the victims
companions when they came out, he manifestly indicated that he clung to his determination.
As for the third element, the prosecution evidence shows that appellant started shouting outside Mrs. del
Rosarios house at 3:30 p.m. When the victims group left the house, it was not yet dark; it was only past four
oclock in the afternoon. The police received information on the stabbing incident at 4:30 p.m. on the same
day. It took less than an hour from the time appellant evinced a desire to commit the crime, as manifested by
his shouts outside the house, up to the time he stabbed the victim. The span of less than one hour could not
have afforded the former full opportunity for meditation and reflection on the consequences of the crime he
committed.
The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and
reflection on the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm
judgment.
Where no sufficient lapse of time is appreciable from the determination to commit the crime until its
execution, evident premeditation cannot be appreciated. Hence, the lower court erred in holding that evident
premeditation qualified the killing to murder.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is PARTLY GRANTED. Appellant is CONVICTED of homicide.
US v Baluyot Art. 14. Treachery
Facts:
Baluyot, the accused entered the office of Condrado Lerma, the governor of Bataan, when the latter was on
his chair behind his desk. The accused spoke some words before firing a shot (first) at the governor when he
discovered that the latter was unarmed. The bullet hit the frontal region of the right shoulder blade, a wound
of minor importance. The governor while running away was again shot by Baluyot (second), hitting the latter
in the region of the right shoulder blade and passing through the body, and took refuge in a closet near the
Page 28 of 34

Civil Law Cases Arts. 12-14 Trece Martires and Friends

corridor where he screamed for help. The screaming of the governor allowed the accused to identify where
the face of the governor was in contrast to the closet where the former took refuge. The accused fired (third
shot) at the origin of the voice, the bullet passed through the panel of the door and hit a mortal wound upon
the governor.
Issue: Whether or not treachery was present at the moment the fatal blow (third shot) was given.
Held: Yes. It was held that the assault from the beginning until the second shot was fired must be considered
continuous. The third shot, however, is not in continuity with the previous shots. The element of alevosia
(treachery) is necessarily found in the manner the crime was consummated. It was the wound in the head that
caused the death of the victim. There was an interruption in the assault which enabled the accused to think
and make preparation for a method or form of attack that insured the execution of the crime without risk to
self. In the closet with the door shut, it was impossible for the governor to see what his assailant was doing or
to make any defense whatever against the shot directed through the panel of the door. It was as if the victim
has been bound or blind-folded, or had been treacherously attacked from behind in a path obscured by the
darkness of the night.
PEOPLE v Escote Art. 14. Treachery
Facts: RTC convicted Juan Gonzales Escote, Jr. and Victor Acuyan of the complex crime of robbery with
homicide. At past midnight, while a passenger bus was on its way Bolinao, Pangasinan, six passengers boarded
the bus, including Victor Acuyan and Juan Escote, Jr. who were wearing maong pants, rubber shoes, hats and
jackets. Escote seated himself on the third seat near the aisle, in the middle row of the passengers seats, while
Victor stood by the door in the mid-portion of the bus beside Romulo. Another passenger, Manio Jr. a
policeman, was seated at the rear portion of the bus on his way home to Angeles City. Tucked on his waist was
his service gun. The lights of the bus were on even as some of the passengers slept. When the bus was
travelling along the highway in Plaridel, Bulacan, Juan and Victor suddenly stood up, whipped out their
handguns and announced a holdup. Juan fired his gun upward to awaken and scare off the passengers. Victor
followed suit and fired his gun upward. Juan and Victor then accosted the passengers and divested them of
their money and valuables. Juan divested the conductor of the fares he had collected from the passengers.
The felons then went to the place the policeman was seated and demanded that he show them his
identification card and wallet. The policeman brought out his identification card. Juan and Victor took the
identification card of the police officer as well as his service gun and told him: Pasensya ka na Pare, papatayin
ka namin, baril mo rin and papatay sa iyo. The police officer pleaded for mercy. However, Victor and Juan
ignored the plea of the police officer and shot him on the mouth, right ear, chest and right side of his body.
The policeman sustained six entrance wounds. He fell to the floor of the bus. The felons alighted the bus. The
bus driver reported the incident to the police authorities.
Barely a month thereafter, the felons were stopped at a checkpoint where live bullets were confiscated upon
them. In the course of the investigation, Juan admitted to the police investigators that he and Victor, alias
Victor Arroyo, staged the robbery of the passenger bus and are responsible for the death of SPO1 Manio, Jr. in
Plaridel, Bulacan
ISSUES: 1.WON treachery was attendant in the case at bar
2. WON treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide; and if in the affirmative,
3. WON treachery may be appreciated against Juan and Victor.
HELD: 1. YES. There is treachery when the following essential elements are present, viz: (a) at the time of the
attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (b) the accused consciously and deliberately
Page 29 of 34

Civil Law Cases Arts. 12-14 Trece Martires and Friends

adopted the particular means, methods or forms of attack employed by him. The essence of treachery is the
sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any chance
to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk of himself. Treachery may also be
appreciated even if the victim was warned of the danger to his life where he was defenseless and unable to
flee at the time of the infliction of the coup de grace. In the case at bar, the victim suffered six wounds, one on
the mouth, another on the right ear, one on the shoulder, another on the right breast, one on the upper right
cornea of the sternum and one above the right iliac crest. Juan and Victor were armed with handguns. They
first disarmed SPO1 Manio, Jr. and then shot him even as he pleaded for dear life. When the victim was shot,
he was defenseless. He was shot at close range, thus insuring his death. The victim was on his way to rejoin his
family after a hard days work. Instead, he was mercilessly shot to death, leaving his family in grief for his
untimely demise. The killing is a grim example of the utter inhumanity of man to his fellowmen.
2. YES. Robbery with homicide is classified as a crime against property. Nevertheless, treachery is a generic
aggravating circumstance in said crime if the victim of homicide is killed treacherously. The Supreme Court of
Spain so ruled. So does the Court rule in this case, as it had done for decades. Treachery is not an element of
robbery with homicide. Neither does it constitute a crime specially punishable by law nor is it included by the
law in defining the crime of robbery with homicide and prescribing the penalty therefor. Treachery is likewise
not inherent in the crime of robbery with homicide. Hence, treachery should be considered as a generic
aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide for the imposition of the proper penalty for the crime.
3. NO. It is a rule that where two or more persons perpetrate the crime of robbery with homicide, the generic
aggravating circumstance of treachery shall be appreciated against all of the felons who had knowledge of the
manner of the killing of victims of homicide, with the ratiocination that: However, treachery cannot be
appreciated against Juan and Victor in the case at bar because the same was not alleged in the Information as
mandated by Revised Rules on Criminal Procedures Although at the time the crime was committed, generic
aggravating circumstance need not be alleged in the Information, however, the general rule had been applied
retroactively because if it is more favorable to the accused.] Even if treachery is proven but it is not alleged in
the information, treachery cannot aggravate the penalty for the crime. There being no modifying
circumstances in the commission of the felony of robbery with homicide, Juan and Victor should each be
meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua conformably with Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code.


People v Caratao Art. 14. Treachery
Facts: Sergio A. Caratao, armed with a bladed weapon assault and stab Edgardo Bulawin, thus inflicting upon
him stab wounds on the different parts of his body, which directly caused his death. This in connection with
the request by the former of his rice vale which the later did not give. Witnesses were accounted to testify
that Caratao, standing one meter behind the victim, who was then already astride his motorbike, the left hand
of Caratao was on the shoulder of Bulawin and his right hand stab Bulawin on the side and immediately made
another thrust towards the face. The respondent also presented witnesses to the witness stand, claiming that
Bulawin accuseds left thigh near the groin using his motorcycle, the accused stabbed the right portion of the
victims belly. In retaliation, the victim punched appellant with his left fist, hitting appellants mouth. The
acussed then voluntarily surrendered and admitted that he killed Bulawin and also surrendered his knife.
Issue: WON, the accused committed murder with treachery.

Page 30 of 34

Civil Law Cases Arts. 12-14 Trece Martires and Friends

Held: No, treachery is present when two conditions concur, namely: (1) that the means, methods and forms of
execution employed gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) that
such means, methods and forms of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the accused
without danger to his person. In the case at bar, the first element was established by the fact that appellant
suddenly attacked from behind the unsuspecting and unarmed victim who was then astride his motorcycle.
However, we find the prosecutions evidence insufficient to sustain the finding of the presence of the second
element, namely, that appellant deliberately adopted the mode of attack. In the present case, it appears from
the evidence that appellants grudge against the victim was brought about only moments before the attack,
when the latter ignored his repeated pleas for rice. The sight of Bulawin leaving the compound without
heeding Carataos request must have worsened his anger. It was thus only by chance and not by plan that he
attacked the victim the way he did. The stabbing was evidently a result of a rash and impetuous impulse of the
moment arising from what appellant perceived to be an unjust act of the victim, rather than from a
deliberated action. Hence, as the killing was done at the spur of the moment, treachery cannot be
appreciated. In the absence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the crime committed is Homicide, not
Murder.
The decision of the court a quo is MODIFIED to Homicide.
People v Sitchon - Art. 14 - Treachery
Facts: Lilia was in front of the house attending to her children when she heard the sound of a boy crying.
Curious, Lilia went up the stairway, her children in tow. The open door of the upper floor allowed Lilia to
witness appellant beating and banging the head of the two-year old victim, Mark Anthony Fernandez, which
lasted for about an hour. She then saw appellant carry the boy down the house to bring him to the hospital.
The two-year old was already black and no longer moving.
The brother's victim, Roberto, also testified that the appellant he called as Kuya Chito (live in partner of their
mother), beat the victim by a belt, hammer, and 2x2 wood. P03 Javier, officer in charge of the incident, also
observed wounds on the victim's finger and feet, upper lip, and contusions all over his body. Post mortem
examination concluded that victim died of bilateral pneumonia secondary to multiple blunt traversal injuries
or complication of the lungs due to injuries.
The appellant surrendered and admitted the killing under the influence of drugs. Explaining his change of plea,
appellant clarified that the killing of the boy was "accidental." Nevertheless, the trial court convicted him of
murder.
Issue: Whether or not the crime committed is by means of treachery.
Held: Yes. The Court held that the killing in this case was attended by treachery. There is treachery when the
offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution
thereof which tend directly and especially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the
defense which the offended party might make. It is beyond dispute that the killing of minor children who, by
reason of their tender years, could not be expected to put up a defense, is treacherous.
Thus, accused-appellant Emelito Sitchon is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder by means of
treachery, as defined and punished by Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and is sentenced to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua.
People v. Ancheta - Art. 14. Treachery

Page 31 of 34

Civil Law Cases Arts. 12-14 Trece Martires and Friends

FACTS: On the night of September 2, 1993, Jonathahn Aromin (witness) and his neighbor Julian Ancheta went
to the house of the accused SPO1 Eduardo Ancheta who lived just across them. Julian told Jonathan to knock
on the door first but when no one answered Julian did the knocking himself. When the accused opened the
door, Jonathan immediately noticed that SPO1 Ancheta was armed with a gun. Intimidated, Jonathan began to
move away. As he left the house of the accused, Jonathan suddenly heard two (2) shots which prompted him
to hide behind the nearest wall. But when he looked back the accused SPO1 Ancheta was already aiming his
revolver directly at his face and without hesitation shot him at close range. Stunned by the gunshot wound,
Jonathan momentarily blacked out but soon regained consciousness when his neighbor, Leonila Lopez, came
to his aid and rushed him to the Jose Reyes Memorial Medical Center. At the hospital, the slug that pierced his
right cheek was removed from his left shoulder and was subsequently released on 7 September 1993.
In the SPO1 Anchetas defense, he claimed that he was sleeping with his wife and son at home that time when
he was awakened by the sound of someone banging on his door. After a brief silence he heard him say: "Pare
buksan mo ito." Sensing danger, the accused took his gun from under his pillow and ordered the person to
identify himself. But the stranger just kept on banging the door and insisted that it be opened. When he finally
opened the door, he saw his brother Julian Ancheta and his neighbor Jonathan Aromin. Upon seeing them, he
inquired as to why his brother addressed him as "pare" but instead of answering, Julian Ancheta angrily asked
him why he was holding a gun. To appease his brother, the accused lowered his pistol and explained that the
gun was only for protection as he had no idea who was banging his door in the middle of the night. He then
invited them into the house, but when he turned around his brother suddenly grabbed his hand from behind
to disarm him. As they grappled, the gun accidentally fired twice and the next thing he saw was his brother
sprawled on the ground and Jonathan Aromin was nowhere to be found. He never knew what actually
happened to Jonathan Aromin as his back was turned against him when the gun went off.
The trial court found the accused guilty of Murder to the killing of Ancheta and Frustrated Murder for shooting
Aromin. SPO1 Ancheta then appealed to the Court on the grounds that the court a quo gravely erred in
convicting him of murder and frustrated murder since there was no proof that killing was attended by evident
premeditation or treachery.
ISSUE: WON the killing of Julian Ancheta and the shooting of Jonathan Aromin were qualified by treachery.
HELD: No. While it was established that accused-appellant intentionally shot his brother Julian, the witnesses
never saw how the killing started. Treachery cannot be considered where the witnesses did not see the
commencement of the assault and the importance of such testimonies cannot be overemphasized considering
that treachery cannot be presumed nor established from mere suppositions. And where no particulars are
shown as to the manner by which the aggression was commenced or how the act which resulted in the death
of the victim began and developed, treachery can in no way be established. Hence, without the existence of
treachery accused-appellant can only be convicted of homicide in killing Julian Ancheta.
Neither was treachery established in the shooting of Jonathan Aromin. Two (2) conditions must concur for
treachery to exist, namely: (a) the employment of means of execution that gave the person attacked no
opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and, (b) the means or method of execution was deliberately or
consciously adopted. Both these circumstances must be proved as indubitably as the crime itself.
In the case at bar, however, there is no sufficient proof to establish with certainty that accused-appellant
deliberately and consciously adopted the means of executing the crime against Jonathan Aromin.
Furthermore, the victim was already aware of the danger as he saw accused-appellant carrying a gun and
heard two (2) gunshots prompting him to run and hide behind a wall. Thus, there could be no treachery since
Page 32 of 34

Civil Law Cases Arts. 12-14 Trece Martires and Friends

prior to the attack the victim was forewarned of the danger to his life and even managed to flee, albeit
unsuccessfully. Consequently, accused can only be convicted of frustrated homicide in shooting Aromin.
People vs Alfanta - Article 14 Ignominy
Facts: The victim, Nita Fernandez, was asleep in the residence of a friend when at around 12 midnight, a man
she had not seen before suddenly entered the house, boxed her jaw and covered her mouth with his had. He
was pointing a bolo at her and threatened to kill her if she will resist. Thereafter, she was taken and brought to
a vacant house where the stranger succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her. After the first intercourse,
she was ordered to lie face down while the man sodomized her. Not satisfied, the accused then inserted his
finger inside her. Thereafter, the man lay down beside her and again threatened to kill her. After a while, Nita
noticed that the man was asleep, she then stabbed the man with the knife and hacked him with the bolo
when the former broke. She was able to escape and go to theauthorities, who apprehended the man later on
identified as the accused.
Issue: Whether the crime of rape should be aggravated by nighttime. Whether there was ignominy when the
accused forced the victim to engage in anal sex.
Held: The law defines night as being from sunset to sunrise. By and itself, nighttime would not be an
aggravating circumstance unless it is specially sought by the offender or taken advantage of by him, or it
facilitated the commission of the crime by insuring the offenders immunity from capture. In the present case,
the accused abducted the victim, brought her to an abandoned, unlit house and then unleashedhis carnal
desire on her, assured of the stillness of a sleeping world.
With respect to ignominy, Art 14 par 17 of the RPC considers to be aggravating any means employed or
circumstance that adds disgrace and obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime. The case of People vs
Saylan is applicable. In this case wherein the accusedentered the victim from behind, the offender claimed
that there was no ignominy because the studies of experts have shown that the positionis not novel and has
been resorted to by couples in the act ofcopulation. This may well be true if the sexual act is performed by
consenting partners but not otherwise.


PEOPLE V DIZON - ART. 14 - IGNOMINY
FACTS: Private complainant Arlie Rosalin, engineering student from Dinalupihan, Bataan, alighted from a bus
as it stopped by a small bridge along EDSA just before Roosevelt Avenue, Quezon City. Seconds later, she
heard someone call out Miss! and when she turned her head around, she found appellant behind her.
Appellant suddenly seized her, pointing a fan knife to the side of her neck, and announced a holdup. He then
told her to face the railing of the bridge and asked for her wallet and jewelry. Terrified, private complainant
complied. Still not content, though, appellant got her backpack, warning her that should he find another
wallet inside, he would kill her and throw her over the bridge as he had done to his other victims.
The appellants took and carted away the following items:
One necklace w/pendant - P 300.00
Two (2) gold rings 5,000.00
One bag pack containing
Assorted clothes 2,000.00
Page 33 of 34

Civil Law Cases Arts. 12-14 Trece Martires and Friends

One(1) paper bag (bench)

Containing stuff toys 200.00
Perfume 1,000.00
Cash 1,000.00
Appellant kissed private complainant on the lips, neck, and breasts, which he also mashed. He likewise bit her
nipple at least three times, as well as the right side of her back and vagina. Unable to control his lustful urges
any longer, he forced her to bend forward over the hood of a taxi and, in this position, forcefully penetrated
her vagina with his organ.
After satisfying himself in this fashion, appellant ordered private complainant to hold and massage his penis
which, he boastfully informed the latter, carried bolitas. He then forced her to put his foul-smelling penis into
her mouth, which sickened her to the pit of her stomach.
Still not done with her, appellant forced private complainant to lie on the ground. Private complainant could
not fight off any of appellants demands, because whenever she tried to resist, and whenever she failed to
answer any of his questions, he would bang her head on the hood of the taxi, slam her head on the wall, or
slap her hard in the face.
Soon, private complainant found a store that was about to close. She barged in, informing the people that she
had been raped, and pleaded for their help. However, the owner of the store did not want to get involved.
Instead, he reminded her to wear her pants, then referred her to the barangay.
About three days later, the barangay informed private complainant that they already had a suspect who
matched appellants description. Accompanied by policemen, among others, she went to the vicinity of the
Munoz market, where appellant was reportedly working as a tricycle dispatcher.
ISSUE: WON the appellant is guilty of the crime robbery with rape.
HELD: YES. The Court AFFIRMS the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 219 in Crim.
Case No. Q-71910 finding appellant Renato Dizon y Zuela guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
robbery with rape under paragraph one, Art. 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 7659,
attended by two (2) aggravating circumstances, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of death, to pay
victim Arlie Rosalin P200,000.00 as moral damages; and P9,500.00 as actual damages, with the MODIFICATION
that he shall further pay the victim P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
In accordance with Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659, amending Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, upon
finality of this decision, let certified copies thereof, as well as the records of this case, be forwarded without
delay to the Office of the President for possible exercise of executive clemency.

Page 34 of 34